I'm now over 50 years old, a full stack web developer, and I'm married and have two kids, an 8 year old and a 1 year old baby.
I've been in this industry for a while. I started out as a system administrator writing a lot of bash and Perl scripts, taking care of mail servers and DNS, and doing a lot of corporate backups. That job is now called "DevOps", and I've made the transition.
I now work in Python 3, Django, Ruby, JavaScript, Kubernetes, and AWS. I haven't been standing still, and I firmly believe the key to avoiding career stagnation is to be constantly learning and educating yourself and never being satisfied with the status quo.
I've been fortunate, as a remote worker, that I haven't really experienced severe negative consequences (at least not yet...knock on wood) from age discrimination. Yet the shadow of ageism is always there, and I hear stories from friends about incredibly insensitive and cringe-worthy age discrimination.
I'm content with my role as a "grey beard" (I'm actually clean-shaven now, but back in the day I had a huge red UNIX hacker beard). But I'm not happy with the way the tech industry treats older workers. I'm supportive of legal protections for older workers in tech. We are not all dinosaurs. Many of us know, for instance, how to sniff out fads from real forward leaps, and we have deep industry experience that can be leveraged by employers open-minded enough to hire us.
I've never worked with a significantly older person (in tech anyways), but I would happily lean on them for sniffing out fads. Even in my 30's, it's kinda hard to tell what's a fad and what's not.
I really don't understand why there is a bias against age. Programming, for me, is a daily exercise in epistemic humility, and I can't fathom having the kind of arrogance to discount the experience and wisdom that comes with age.
> I really don't understand why there is a bias against age.
I've observed this first-hand while doing interviews. Even in companies that insist there's no bias against age, and even with people who insist they don't have any bias, there is nonetheless a preference for hiring:
* People who don't have a clear understanding of how much their work is worth and therefore have difficulties negotiating a high salary
* People who openly display enthusiasm -- and this is especially true among HR and higher-level managers, who can't really discern technical expertise so they look at things they can assess themselves. Enthusiasm is obviously good to have but it's no substitute for expertise, commitment and discipline, all of which are hard to evaluate if you have little or no technical experience.
* People who have no strong personal commitments and don't mind doing overtime on a short notice
* People who are enthusiastic about new technology, because they enable ambitious team leaders' and managers' experiments and pet projects instead of skeptically cautioning against them.
* People who have no trouble buying into a new company's culture, even when it's of questionable value (i.e. people who can quickly assimilate and integrate in even the most toxic working environments, as opposed to people who can recognize one, understand what kind of damage it does, and quickly go fsck it, this ain't worth it!)
Experienced programmers know their worth and aren't twenty year-olds that you can walk all over if you have a fancy title. So there are a lot of hiring managers who would be okay with hiring a 50-year old candidate, but have difficulty finding a 50-year old candidate that they'd be willing to hire.
This is indeed a good breakdown of things that aren't intended as age discrimination, but look at feel a lot like it.
Another factor is that many large companies have roles and expectations tied to length of experience - so if you have 20 years experience, fine, you're being compared with other candidates with 20 years of experience, and people who have been with the company for 20 years and promoted a few times.
In this situation, it's not the case that a candidate with 5 years experience, and a candidate with 20 years experience that are both qualified for an opening are compared against each other and the more experienced candidate will be preferred.
When comparing candidates with 20 years of experience against each other, there's huge variation. Some have been developing, are well-rounded, and have worked in a variety of interesting roles, others have been doing similar things, piecemeal work, contracting with no overall ownership, and not so much to show for it. It's the difference between 20 years of growth, versus the same year 20 times over.
This is a very good point imo, I've met engineers with 15 yoe I consider worse than some engineers with 2 precisely for this reason.
Related to this is that there are social problems about not getting good enough fast enough. I had a chat at one point with a developer who just hit 40 was struggling to find work and asked for some feedback. I asked him to explain Depth First Search to me and he couldn't do it, he was quite confident he could _implement_ it, but not explain it.
Now, if he were 20 with no yoe, I might chalk that up to inexperience and bank on being able teach him, but at 15 yoe you don't know DFS well enough to explain it the odds of you getting it now are slim.
The inability to answer problems of _at least_ this complexity leads to a social problem in the workplace: the young guys are going to go to this older, experienced employee and ask them to explain something along the same lines of complexity as DFS. In my experience, one of three things will happen:
1. They explain it poorly, the younger employees will believe them, and now I have two employees with a shared misunderstanding
2. They explain it poorly, the younger employees will not believe him, and now they won't respect them
3. They say they don't know how to solve the problem, the younger employees won't respect them
All of these results slowly lead to a dysfunctional team.
Toxic work environments and constant overtime are to be avoided at all costs. But in the San Francisco/Silicon Valley area at least, companies are absolutely burying inexperienced hires in money, so I don't think the salary issue is as much of an issue anymore.
As to the rest of those preferences, it actually costs an older worker very little simply to cultivate an enthusiasm for new technologies, or their new companies' pet projects.
Where an inexperienced hire will do anything becuase they think everything will work, and an experienced hire might refuse to do things because they think it won't work, a true wise greybeard realizes most things don't work no matter what, but you might as will get onboard and take the ride. You never know what might end up succeeding.
Fortunately, some of those things can be faked, er..., simulated. ;-) Actually, it's kind of surprising, because a 50+ year old employee, if they've been in the industry at all, has already been faking those things for two or three decades.
All of that rings true to me, but I think there's a corollary that if you're willing to pay people in accordance with the value of their depth of experience, and you can evaluate expertise without being biased by enthusiasm, and you can build a stable team that executes on a plan instead of requiring tons of overtime to scramble from emergency to emergency, and if you value choosing the right technologies for a problem over following trends, and if you don't have a toxic culture, then there is a treasure trove of people out there with experience and expertise, who you have less competition to hire.
Definitely -- but while most places don't actually suffer from all those things at once, a lot of them do worry about most of them, and will bring them up if they're out of criteria based on which to differentiate candidates.
I've seen places where availability for sudden overtime was a big deal, even though it was rarely needed. The reasons were completely stupid but it was a big deal and it played a big role in deciding hires. The projects were well-executed and deadlines were rarely missed, but management quirks meant that every team lead and manager was afraid of not being able to cope with crunch.
Also, a lot of these problems aren't "global" -- a company may actually run into all of them, but not everywhere and not with the same people. Companies that do value choosing the right technologies over following trends will nonetheless have one or two people who would like to be more bold. They may generally aim for building stable teams that executes on a plan and delivers things on time, but they nonetheless won't be devoid of newly-hired managers who don't have experience running things like that, or who might be willing to compromise on this side of things for a volatile, but high-potential project. Even toxicity can be surprisingly well isolated.
There's two different, but related, things going on:
1) Is regular, ordinary age discrimination. This is why tech companies won't hire people starting second careers into entry level programming roles.
2) The widespread notion that more than about 5 years programming experience is not valuable, maybe even counterproductive. (Firm specific knowledge is a different story, tech companies do value that.) Hence all the "senior" programmers with 3 years experience.
--
The first one is illegal and in my opinion immoral. The second one to my mind an empirical question--it doesn't seem to be true based on my experiences and observations, but I'd be willing to have my mind changed by evidence.
Partially illegal. I'm 39, and it is perfectly legal for companies to tell me they won't hire me because I'm too old. Next year it becomes illegal for them to do so.
They'll never actually admit it though even if it was legal though. Companies would prefer to say they're looking for a better fit or something equally vague.
On fads. In spite of the hype, I believe Rust is not a fad. It's going to be doing extremely well in 50 years.
I cant condense the background that goes into that statement into a single comment. But a few other languages are valuable too and will be for a while.
I think the ideas that Rust is demonstrating are valuable, and will be around in 50 years. I'm not sure if Rust will be. I sort of hope it won't be, because that implies it'll be replaced by an even better realisation of the same ideas.
I'm pushing 50 the older I get the shorter the engagements get until I have lost everything and live with my mom with no income. Its really brutal I gave up on having relationships and family to do a couple decades worth of unpaid overtime and my payback is being thrown out of society.
Same here - over 50, remote worker - no complaints...
I hear about age discrimination on here a lot, but I can't honestly say I know any coder impacted by it. Even my friends in silicon valley are still employed in their 50s.
I wonder if its a regional thing? Areas with high demand for coders can't afford to throw out good candidates because they have grey hair?
I was applying to a job with a large game studio. The interview was going pretty well, I'd thought. We talked a bit about how we'd implement certain gameplay elements, the content of the projects we've worked on, and overall it just seemed good and we all seemed to get along pretty well.
Then they asked me how old I was. Their response to my age was, "Oh... maybe it's a little late then. You're not too old, but... kind of cutting it close by just a bit."
I think the rejection might actually be good for you - they certainly were looking for a young, naive, and enthusiastic person - to exploit to death their desire to work in game industry, and pay them peanuts.
In the UK (and I suspect all of the EU?) it’s specifically illegal to discriminate on age (https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination), and when I was last interviewing there HR would remove any birthdates that came in on CVs before passing them over to the interviewers.
In Germany, it's customary to include a picture of yourself in your CV.
...I think you can figure out your chances, if you don't include one.
EDIT: I'm saying this to show how the German (who are European) employers will try to circumvent such age discriminating laws. You get it taught in school, in vocational training, at jobless centers, self-help books and the Internet, that the picture must be of "high-quality", in a sense already arguing past the necessity of why they'd even require one in the first place. I personally do not agree with this practice, though it seems, that more and more employees are becoming aware of this and employers are starting to respect that too.
Here in the US, we had a candidate include a picture of himself... wearing a captain hat and striking a dramatic pose. He said he put it there to filter out the wrong kind of companies. We hired him.
I wish it were. Google "lebenslauf muster" in image search to see it in full effect.
> There are a few must-have personal details every Lebenslauf should include which you might not have on your original CV: a photo, your marital status and place of birth.
True (about caring about looks); but now most people on linked in happily provide a photo of themselves, though admittedly I know many haven’t changed (updated) their photos since they uploaded a photogenic photo they’ve always used.
...I guess he's looking for people out-of-the-norm and willing/able to stand up to their convictions?
I wouldn't put a picture, but when I had to write some CVs here, I caved in and put a photo. I used to think it was a fault of mine to be so far off the norm, and I tried really hard to fit in. It just didn't work out for me. Today, I think I know that this is what can make me valuable.
EDIT: ...but it is kind of a play of statistics vs. faith, and I think that one shouldn't fault someone, if they can't pull the faith together for it. A comment on my parent comment tells about someone applying in the US with a comical picture. That person was able to afford applying in such a way, but when you really need a job, because money or family, would you really take that risk/leap of faith? EDIT2: ...or that could also be signalling, that someone is high-risk taker, which could also be an attribute an employer is looking for.
It's illegal, but also hard to prove. Even without birth dates, you can make a reasonable estimate based on work experience and graduation date. And when the candidate turns out to be a bit grayer than you expected, that can, even subconsciously, affect your decision.
NO, but at least the older candidate can get their proverbial foot in the door before being screened out. Of course, the CV/resume is likely long enough to infer age within a decade or so. It's a hard problem to solve.
That's the law in a lot of countries, including here, but I've been asked it anyway. What are you going to do about it, beyond secretly recording your interviews then suing?
For the sake of your time and your sanity you should do neither of those things. You should file a complaint with the appropriate state labor body, particularly in a US state like CA where the agencies are well funded. The chance of it benefiting you is virtually nil, but the chance of it causing pain for the employer - hopefully forcing them to change their ways - is non-zero.
Outside the US I have no knowledge of at what level those protections may/may not be enforced (but hopefully somewhere).
I'm 25 work at a relatively large game studio. My boss and the whole chain up (3 people) are all in their late 40s or older. I've learned so much from them as well as the senior engineers that I sit next to.
After my experience here, a low average age for an engineering team is a red flag. You're better off for not having been offered or taking that job.
This is blatantly illegal and if you really wanted to you could win a lawsuit against them (there are many reasons not to start legal action, but you could). I worked for a large game studio and we had a mandatory training session about protected classes because of things like this.
It is not illegal to discriminate against 26 year olds, the law explicitly states that you are only protected when you are 40 or older. (Assuming this is USA)
Not in the US. The Age Discrimination In Employment Act specifically only prohibits age discrimination against workers who are 40 or older. Discriminating against someone not over 40 is perfectly legal.
More generally, discrimination in employment is legal by default. It becomes illegal only when a specific law gives protection for a specific characteristic. The laws are much narrower than many people think. For example, there are no laws disallowing discrimination for or against smokers, or Yankee fans, or D&D players.
This is an example where age saved you from a bad experience. They wanted you naive and be able to shape you the way thet wanted to and pay you next to nothing.
I was working in a small startup in Germany. I think our boss was around 40. He didn't want developer older than 38 :D We were just above 30 at that time.
Were you applying for a junior position? Not saying you were not worth hiring, just that they didn't see it. To me it sounds more like they needed an excuse not to hire you. People here are complaining about being discriminated at age 40 or 50 and I don't see a point in introducing an angle that people are discriminated for being too old at age 26.
I've seen and heard of age discrimination in non-tech industries, but in the tech industry I believe that age discrimination is often mistaken for skills obsolescence.
As a software developer for as long as I can remember, I'm actually at the top of my game now in my 40s - I can software engineer (plan) off the top of my head, and my tenacity is balanced with a sense of direction I never had as a younger developer. I spend half the time developing and produce 10 times the results (there's still crunch time every so often though).
The trick is to keep your mind active - I have a job that allows me to do a lot of side development projects outside of working hours, and I always take on a new project at least once a year that is out of my comfort zone (if it looks impossible, it's perfect).
Whenever topics like this come up on HN, there are always tons of people in their 30s and 40s posting comments like this, which boil down to something like: "I'm not old enough to experience age discrimination yet, and I'm scared but I'm going to keep up with the latest languages/frameworks so I will be special and not be discriminated against like all the other developers, who allowed their skills to deteriorate when they got older."
On the other hand, when people who are already in their 50s post about this topic, they are saying things like, "My phone interview went really great and they were impressed by my skills, but when I went in their attitude changed the second they saw how old I am."
I'm 54. Have been in sw dev for 40 years. I have kept my skills (aws api / node.js / css / html5 / etc) up to the point were I am over qualified for many of the positions (laid off 3 years back from IBM) I apply for. Before I updated my LinkedIn profile pic I received many interview invites. Now I get none. Recently I started looking at the people that these sw dev companies _actually_ hire. They ask for 3/5/10 years experience but I found that in almost every case (95%) the devs they hired were under 25, straight out of collage with 0 experience. Last year I applied for 300 positions, now I don't even bother looking to dev work anymore. I have 3 kids at home and we are close to bankruptcy. Let me be very clear here: The _only_ thing that matters in gaining employment in sw dev (in my city at least) is your age. Edit: Also should mention that I often offered (have no choice) to work for much less $ then what junior would be making.
I'm a middle age female software developer and also found similar experience when I was in the job market recently. The software development positions generally are below 2 years, under 5 years and the senior position at 6-8 years. What do you do if you have 20 years of software development experience?
Recently worked for a (bad) silicon valley YC company, and was shocked to learn that 6-8 years of experience is considered senior these days. Not enough experience at that point to really be senior, but I think there's such a desperate need for developers that they have to do that.
To be clear, I've certainly met people in their 20s that have senior-level ability, but they are by far the exception.
I agree with you that the "senior" title is passed out too easily, but as someone who is 46 this has been the case throughout my entire career, I don't think it is a new problem.
In fact, the 6-8 years of experience you quote is far higher than I would have guessed if you asked me when the average company (incorrectly) starts handing out "senior" titles.
I definitely agree - more precisely, I meant that "6-8 years" is the time by which nearly all people have attained "senior" designation, even if they aren't that good. However, it used to be (in the places I worked, at least) that a person wasn't senior until at least 10 years of experience.
> What do you do if you have 20 years of software development experience?
Move to a market where your skills are in high demand and focus on middle/business and back end development. Or better yet, embedded systems development.
I've been at this for 25 years and IMO, the further down the call stack you go the more your cumulative years of experience are an asset.
This doesn't mean you can stop learning new tech, it just means the trends in those lower layers seem to be more sustained and of a longer duration.
That is the route I am now going. Until my last breath I'm going to build a sw company and hire 100's of people. Like all companies I'll have a page on my site that says how moral and inclusive we are except that we won't be hypocrites like most (all?) other sw companies. This is my delusional dream.
I've always liked the idea of a consulting firm that specialized in hiring old people. I wonder if there's enough work to keep something like that fed if one were to specialize in 'obsolete' tech and market at a national level.
Heck, to the right client, that one i860 or C80 programmer might be worth gold. Either that, or just do a highly competent job at embedded programming generally.
I had a very similar problem and ended up in the streets. The solution was to join a bootcamp, cut things from the resume and get a junior job. From here, you can leverage new connections to get a better job or a promotion.
Joining a bootcamp makes it look like you are new to the field and will settle for an entry-level salary. This is a very extreme solution, but might help you solve this problem for several years.
I feel bad for saying this, but my advice is to dye your hair, join a gym and take some years of your Facebook profile.
Try to save some money to buy a car to do Uber, start a small IT consulting firm or get a job teaching. Most people will advice mild patches but they dont know what it's like to run out of money. I feel your pain.
"I'm 54. Have been in sw dev for 40 years.....Last year I applied for 300 positions,..."
Being somewhat older than you, but bored, I think about taking up the oar again. My problem doubles down on yours in that my background is all in products with an expensive hardware component or workstation software, neither appears to be a growth industry.
Aside from the inevitable well-meaning advice to become some sort of 'project manager', etc. I wonder if it makes any sense to hit the .gov job markets at all.
My last few years at IBM were as a project manager at big corp. Besides the outright corruption, the new problems were that I was now competing against 6'4" 22yo MBAs fresh out of modeling school. They taught me how to analyse the underside of a bus real quick.
Yeap. I'm in my 30s and I've seen enough writing on the wall to know that there is no way in hell I should be relying on being a software developer to feed me in my 50s or beyond. We can talk about how it shouldn't happen or it's illegal for it to happen all we want - but clearly it happens.
My take is a bit different, and it may explain the phenomenon you've noticed on HN.
TLDR;
I believe a lot of people mistake price discrimination as age discrimination.
Long version:
Let's say you need some code monkey to slap together go or rust services. Well, sure, you get a lot of people applying with 25 years experience, you also get a lot of people applying with 5 years experience.
Now here's the rub, it's highly unlikely that anyone's been coding go or rust services for 20 years in any case. (To be honest, it's even unlikely that anyone's been coding go or rust services for 5.) So any of those applicants, as long as their references check out, will do.
Which salary do I want to pay?
If I have a low level, quasi hardware layer service that I need coded in C or C++? Fine, yes, experience matters. It matters a lot in those instances, and I'd be foolish to hire some kid to do that. But there is less and less of that kind of work. (Flip side being that such work is more and more critical.) The dirty secret of the tech industry however, is that most work is just CRUD equivalent stuff that could be satisfactorily accomplished by any warm bodied techie. So it just makes no sense to pay more for those warm bodies.
> ...the dirty secret of the tech industry however, is that most work is just CRUD equivalent stuff
No.
I see this a lot on HN, the idea that "CRUD" applications are trivial, but it's a myth. It simply is not true.
I think folks are just extrapolating from "Pet-shop" or "Northwind" examples that they've seen in tutorials/docs and assume that that is what, say, enterprise developers actually do at the same level of complexity. It's not and it has never been the case.
CRUD apps are simple. You need one or two architects and seniors to make sure that things don’t go off the rails and to gather the requirements and once you have that, some boot camp grads can do the grunt work.
When I was a team lead, I wouldn’t overpay for a crud developer.
I call myself an “enterprise developer/architect” on HN for context - meaning I don’t work for the cool hip startups but let’s call a spade a spade, I’ve spent the last 10 years working on yet another software as a service crud app or bespoke internal apps. Yeah I spend some time in meetings, dealing with “cloud native” infrastructure and I can hold my own up and down the stack.
> I see this a lot on HN, the idea that "CRUD" applications are trivial, but it's a myth.
Nah, it's true. For the average small to medium size company, CRUD apps are mostly "plug library A into framework B, with a dash of glue logic" and you're done. The most difficult part is the yak-shaving needed to get things to work together.
Things like embedded systems or scaling to FAANG levels are much more difficult.
> it's highly unlikely that anyone's been coding go or rust services for 20 years in any case. (To be honest, it's even unlikely that anyone's been coding go or rust services for 5.) So any of those applicants, as long as their references check out, will do.
This is a common misunderstanding: yes, Rust is new but prior experience with everything else is not capped at 5 years and it matters a lot. Over my career, I’ve had to fix or replace a number of those “any warm bodied techie” apps where they had incorrect results, security issues, unusable performance, etc. because the developers had been marginally proficient in a popular tool but lacking more general skills and, most importantly, the ability to recognize that they were out of their league.
It should be - but I’m positive that everybody with over 10 years experience is calling themselves a “senior developer” by now. There’s no level after that, so most everybody over 35 is a senior developer.
There are “principal developers” and architects, but just like with products and the “Innovator’s Dilemma” at some point, your skillset overserves the market. After a certain level of competence, experience doesn’t add value if you’re applying to be a developer for yet another software as a service crud app. Either be happy with salary stagnation and cost of living raises (if that) or move on to greener pastures.
Well, I’d be way happy if I could spend the next 20 years making what I’m making now (adjusted for inflation) doing what I’m doing now, but it seems like there’s a certain age where your salary expectation is $0 - IF you’re in software. I don’t get why this doesn’t happen to doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.
I keep reading that. But from what I’ve seen from corporate America and outside of the startup culture, if you keep your skills and network current, there are still opportunities. That being said, I’m 45 and the oldest ICs that I know are late 40s early 50s. One has started only applying for remote work.
I wish it were "over 10 years." I help review resumes for my company and on a nearly daily basis I see people with one or even two "senior software engineer" jobs and 6-7 years of experience.
It always sticks out as an, "Oh REALLY?" But without talking to the candidate you never know if it reflects poorly on their knowledge of their own limitations, or is just a sign they happened to work for companies with title inflation. I've seen both.
Don't blame me, I had 4 years experience when my company had a mass exodus so everyone who was left there got a salary bump (+23% for me), and of course they had to title bump since that was way past 'Software Developer'.
3 years after that, I went to work for a company that had the same thing happen and now I'm a 'Technical Lead / Software Architect'. I didn't choose the title life, the title life chose the shitty companies I worked for :(
There's pretty severe title inflation going on at some companies. I know of one company that awarded the "senior" title for people with as little as 3-4 years experience and had several more grandiose titles for people above that level.
Well, as a rule, I never included salary range. I ask for salary requirements. Then only proceed down the evaluation and hiring path with applicants where the salary matches what is available in the budget. Better chance you get an employee who's happy with the pay that way.
I always specified entry level, intermediate, etc, but as times get harder, what you start to realize out here in flyover country is that everyone is applying for all positions. They don't really care about the title or labels. (At least, I suspect it's because times are getting harder? I don't know of any other reason highly experienced people would be applying for some of these kinds of positions.)
Will that expose the company to accusations of age discrimination? They aren’t even interested in applications from developers with more than ten years of experience!
"If I have a low level, quasi hardware layer service that I need coded in C or C++? Fine, yes, experience matters. It matters a lot in those instances, and I'd be foolish to hire some kid to do that. But there is less and less of that kind of work. "
You know, that could be. Dunno why you got the downvote so here's an up.
Offshoring of manufacture probably has something to do with the dearth of work. Development was bound to follow mass production.
As someone who's starting to "get up there", can you share what critical elements helped you get to that higher productivity? I am definitely much better than when I first started (9 years ago), but I think I've largely leveled off in terms of speed of delivery after about 6.
Some niches reward deep exploration. For instance in adversarial domains like security, you do have to outrun the bear, not just be faster than the slowest guy. And the bear is moving pretty fast these days. Some black hats have been thinking about it for years. You have to know everything they know and then have one more trick up your sleeve. So you're not competing so much with new grads for jobs.
One thing I don't like, which was present in this article, is throwing up our hands and saying "but there's nothing we can do". Of course there is. Nobody says that about racial discrimination. The simple truth is that age discrimination is not generally viewed as a problem. The attitude is that older workers aren't as productive, so let's let companies do what they want. In some states, the same argument used to be made about non-white workers, and the people that lived there had the same attitude.
One thing I don't like, which was present in this article, is throwing up our hands and saying "but there's nothing we can do". Of course there is. Nobody says that about racial discrimination.
You think people aren't racially discriminating when they hire people!? Seems to me they absolutely are, which is why I don't think "we can do" much about age discrimination either.
>You think people aren't racially discriminating when they hire people!?
That isn't what the GP said. The GP pointed out that it is possible to do something about discrimination if we make a concerted effort. Racial discrimination has not been eliminated but has been significantly reduced.
All you can do is make it harder (not impossible, just harder) to openly mention race as a factor in hiring. Three people may decide independently to base their hiring decision on the race of a candidate without ever bringing it up. Hell they might do it without even admitting it to themselves.
Maybe I'm wrong. But if you ever come to Auckland, NZ I could show you a lot of suspicious coincidences.
It's improved since the 50s because racism in hiring was legal then, until we passed a law in the 60s banning it. Social attitudes regarding race have shifted dramatically since 1990 (less than half of Americans approved of mixed race marriages then!), but it's not my impression that this has translated to less racism in hiring than 1990.
We also banned discriminating against older people in the 60s, so it's not clear where to go from here.
That is not good advice at all. All it says is "it is up to you old people to put all the effort you can muster at competing with the young". Not everyone gets to look immaculate in their 60s, not everyone gets to occupy a "(prominent) wise elder" position in life by that age either. Just as well, fitting in with fleeting trends is not something people should have to prioritize to be considered productive. What about people who were not so lucky and have health problems or very limiting responsibilities?
I am under 30 by the way, but I am afraid of some grotesque Logan's run scenario where I will lose control over my life just because of age.
If you’re that far along in your career and are still in direct competition with very junior people, then yes, you had better differentiate yourself!
An employee is a seller of labor, and an employer is a buyer. To make the sale, the job seeker must demonstrate the strongest possible value. A lot of outside obligations or time otherwise required to be away from work, all else being equal, makes competitors look relatively more attractive.
Put yourself in the employer’s shoes. Say your toilet is backed up. I’ll assume you’re a homeowner responsible for getting it fixed and not a renter. The first thing you’d likely do is ask your friends to recommend a good plumber. Then you’ll start making phone calls. You probably don’t want someone still in trade school. The best plumber in town may be very expensive or unavailable for a couple of weeks. You have an urgent problem! You talk to another plumber with a reasonable rate but may have to pop in and out of the job on short notice. You need your toilet unstopped today, which means good rate, good reputation, can get there today, and who will stay until the job is done.
I would rather put my effort into differentiating myself with job-related skills without having to "bite back" and "form support groups". This is what exactly I didn't like as advice in this piece.
30 years ago the discrimination was firmly against young people, today it has flipped on its head. Yet we have larger HR departments, rules, etc etc. So some serious questions need to be asked.
But having felt the brunt of age discrimination when I was young and now older, I kinda angst. Kinda feel like generation discriminated sometimes having caught it at both ends.
I think rather than the world flipping, what happened is the absolute value of the age difference between you and the hiring manager was large, small, large. They prefer like kind.
Age difference in manager has never been an issue from my experience. More case of being blocked by initial filtering for being `overqualified`, which in one case - I knew the manager and he had to kick HR's butt for doing what they do best these days. Yes the abstraction layer to a job has grown, before you would agencies and the manager direct. Today you have HR buffers of various forms and with that growth, I've seen a clear shift upon age. Will say in early days it was case of "that's too much money for somebody your age" and "If you was older we would pay you more" with both no question about skills and ability to do the jobs at hand. Though interestingly I did get a response back from a bank once as "overqualified" when I was in my early 20's - but did spot technical errors on the tests they had and agency chap said the boss wasn't keen on having somebody who was better than him as he'd written the tests. So the like minded aspect has some weight in that case.
But the whole money aspect may be a part, companies still (was case when I started work as well) had a mentality that you factored in age when you pay people. So even if you had a young person and an older person who could do the job, you'd pay the younger person less as that was kinda the norm. Though that norm has changed a bit and the days of having somebody 10x as good as the next person and paying them both the same near on has passed, and that is a good thing. As the change about gender, though still needs much work as do many equalities, though again, that's improved.
So on balance, things have improved, but along the way, age has become more defining in mindsets and has a way to go.
But no, I can't support your theory based upon my personal experiences. Not saying that you totally wrong and certainly be the case in some cases/people - though none personally I can attest to myself.
As a millennial (albeit a slightly older one) this is the reason I tend to not worry about this. We’ll be the dominant age group in the workforce for the next 20 years, there’s no reason for us to discriminate against ourselves.
May I suggest that you save your post and look back upon it in 20 years time.
Personally I find swapping around the variable and re-reading things, does help to get a more 360 perspective. So say s/Gen X/Women/, s/millennial/male/ as an example. It's a tip I've learned over my many years that helps to grasp things fairly and helps with many aspects in life to get a fair perspective across to any mindset. Also when you can transpose or flip the variable and come to the same conclusion all the time, then you know that your doing things right and fairly.
That all said, when I was younger I'd laugh at older people who said "School is the best days of your life", then I grew up and appreciated its wisdom more. TAX's alone sure drives that home.
Hahahaha, I see you've never been around startups. Try walking in the door of an SV tech startup in a few years and tell me there's no age discrimination going on. There's little evidence to suggest the trend is generation-dependent.
We had two young engineers (who are no longer with us now) discriminate against applicants for software development roles because of their age, religion, or origins. One of them is a google developer expert and he quite openly rejected people by discriminating against their age (anyone 40+) and beliefs. I didn’t want to veto the hiring decisions even though I could have because at the end of the day they’ll have to work with him.
Then we had a 58 year old engineer apply for an open position. Happy to say that we hired him and it was purely on merit (even sponsored his visa). The retirement age is 60 but his ambitions go beyond that. Needless to say he is one of the best on our team right now.
> We had two young engineers (who are no longer with us now) discriminate against applicants for software development roles because of their age, religion, or origins. One of them is a google developer expert and he quite openly rejected people by discriminating against their age (anyone 40+) and beliefs. I didn’t want to veto the hiring decisions even though I could have because at the end of the day they’ll have to work with him.
I'm not sure that's a great reason to condone illegal discrimination.
I've effectively "fixed" a couple startups built by fresh college grads and interns and made a pretty penny doing it.
I think some companies and some founders have thought engineering was an area where they could cut corners by not hiring experienced people, and they have learned this is a good way to fail.
That being said, you want a mix - more seasoned people leading the direction, processes, and technology selection; and younger people for their energy, enthusiasm, and willingness to learn new things.
This is actually an example of age discrimination. Young people can be in leadership too. I always see conversations about ageism in tech drift towards older workers but as someone who was precocious I was often denied opportunities I was ready for because I didn’t have “enough experience”.
The central theme of anti-discrimination is not judging people for things out of their control (age, gender, race, somehow religion gets in this category too, etc.) and instead being free to judge them for any of the things that they do control.
Experience is a weird one in that it's what they've chosen to do (ok to use) but wanting to see more experience will either mean they had more time to do things (not ok to use) or didn't waste so much of the time they had (ok on the surface, but you'd need to know the person's age to calculate whether or not the amount of experience you desire was within the range of possibility for them).
I should add generally here - you'll have younger people who exceed their years and older people with more enthusiasm and energy than the former.
Experience is really about making mistakes and learning from them and that takes time - there's really no substitute. People who are ahead of their years usually started earlier and worked harder at it.
So the problems I see are a team that's all one or the other and generally that's not good -- it's impossible to find a group of 10 new-grad engineers who all over-perform their age by 10 years.
I think employers discriminate against older people to their own detriment. We have a couple of people in their 50s in our tech team, as well as a broad spread in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. We very fortunate to have a fantastic team across the board, which very much includes our most experienced members.
Granted they tend to be more expensive, but older people have numerous advantages that deliver value which more than offsets the direct costs of salary and benefits:
- More experience (obviously!): not just in terms of work, but in terms of life
- This often means better social skills, and also greater resilience
- Experience means they're often just better at what they do than less experienced staff
- They tend to have family commitments, which means they want to work sane hours, which to me helps set a healthy cultural precedent
- They tend to know themselves well, and are often more settled/content; this can mean less political game playing and jockeying for position/trying to prove themselves. This isn't to suggest they lack ambition, although their priorities are often different, but they tend to be more graceful in trying to achieve their ambitions
- They seem less likely to burdened by an overdeveloped sense of entitlement
All of these are generalisations and there will, of course, be exceptions, but I think it's hard to argue against these characteristics as being more prevalent amongst older workers.
When it comes to tricky pastoral and technical situations, I often find myself leaning quite heavily on the wisdom of my older team members. I really wouldn't be without them[1].
The problem aren't old people, it's people who sit in their cushy employment for ages, don't want to learn something new and try to do things the way they know.
Those can be young too, but I guess since time is a factor here, the older people are the higher the chances they got >5 years of business as usual in their pockets.
I personally prefer diverse ages in my teams, but I also met some awesome devs who learned their skills with analog computers, haha
In my experience age discrimination is real. All large companies explicitly discriminate against young employees because US law does not prevent it (50+ becomes the protected class).
Most young corporate employees are promoted on a schedule. The inputs to that algorithm are age and performance.
Large companies explicitly discriminate against young employees by paying them less and refusing to promote them without considering their age.
You're probably conflating age and experience level here. You also seem to be assuming that people necessarily get promoted at regular intervals based on age - that's flat-out demonstrably not true. If it was true, everyone at age X would be a manager, everyone at age Y would be a director, etc. I've consulted with a lot of big cos and it's extremely common to see people well into their 40s who haven't made it to a manager role, and certainly most people will never make director no matter how old they get.
What happens is that there tend to be implicit experience minimums, not age minimums. To get to manager you need X years experience in the industry/department, director requires Y years, etc. If you start later in life, the age at which you hit that minimum will change. Big co promotions are also tied into politics and visibility of things you've worked on. Plenty of young people shoot up the ranks quickly because they're either well-connected or talked/lucked their way into working on something of high importance and visibility to the company early on.
> it's extremely common to see people well into their 40s who haven't made it to a manager role
"You aren't a manager, therefore your career is a stalled-out failure" is a pretty outdated view. It's getting to be the norm for companies (at least in tech) to have parallel career tracks for managers and individual contributors. Principal/staff engineers at big tech companies have more responsibility and higher compensation than almost any of their management-track colleagues. I'll grant you that the very top position (CEO) is always a management role, though.
Saying "there is age discrimination in the tech industry" is looking at the symptoms. The root cause is not being able to look at it from the system's viewpoint that causes it.
Tech industry especially the cutting/bleeding edge segment, is a crapshoot. Its survival depends on breaking rules, boundaries, assumptions and being starry-eyed believers
Seasoned engineers appear to "project" they are fixated on things knowingly or unknowingly. If you are doing it unknowingly - time to review one's communication style.
Also, this segment survives (or emerges out of) by riding the technology shifts. For example, here is a shift in the software programming segment.
green screen -> desktop -> web -> mobile -> deep learning.
Most companies do prefer to hire senior members who have experience with prior technology segment and are attempting a newer one.
My experience: I work in one of the more conservative IT branches (healthcare IT) and the grey beards I have met (usually old coders who did not submit to the management lure) were most of the time really inspiring people in terms of professional (and sometimes 'humane') insight.
This gives me hope, as I love my job and do not intend to leave my chosen career anytime soon.
Age is just a heuristic. It's not an age gap, it's a culture gap.
Expectations of one's job are vastly different (fulfill all of my personal needs versus provide financial stability to support my personal life; work-life blend versus work-life balance).
Ethics are different (Adderall will get me through crunch time versus ugh! crunch time!; give me little projects like I had in college versus give me an area of responsibility and a mandate).
Standards are different (this project will be dead/replaced in a year, or I'll be at a new gig, so building quality is a waste versus always build quality, the definition of which I've determined based on decades of experience).
There's a gap of political perspective as well (boomers and, to an extent, Gen-Xers screwed up the world versus inheriting the established business/social order was generally accepted).
Easiest to understand is a vast difference in language and cultural reference points - not as different as an ESL candidate but on that same spectrum.
The national political season so far has surprised me because, AFAIK, none of the presidential politicians has made a direct attack on age discrimination at work. It seems like the perfect combination of issues: a highly motivated voter segment and a pain point widely felt.
Having worked in a few fields (never in development), my experience is that while it varies in quality, it is almost omnipresent.
In my 40s, now, and for a few reasons, looking at having to self-reinvent, again. Opportunity cost is very high and desired outcome uncertain from all preferred choices. While I try to remain positive and productive, I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit that I am scared that I will never again work in a mentally-engaged, fulfilling profession.
In traditional industries, experience built up connections, and older workers would be hired for their "Rolodex" to bring in the money. In tech as an IC, proving the value of experience is much more subtle.
In my day to day work, I recognize that a lot of what I do could just as easily be done by a college intern. It's those rare occasions when I can stop a terrible decision that my experience comes into play. I will speak up when a PM wants to launch a stupid idea, or an Exec tries to pursue a strategy that I know will fail. It's those rare but valuable instances that I highlight in my performance review.
And still, I don't know how long I will be able to stay ahead of the curve and one day I might not be able to justify my value. Age discrimination is a symptom of a larger problem to which this hyper-rational capitalism we've inherited is subjecting all of us, young and old. Prove yourself or die, it's actually quite disturbing.
My life was destroyed due to age discrimination. Even with a masters degree and a CS degree I was pushed into homelessness and had to beg for food for nearly a year.
In order to escape my situation, I removed 19 years of work experience and joined a boot camp where 90% of the things that were explained were already known to me.
Last year a fresh hire (white male graduated from a second-tier US college) was making 50% more than all of us (mostly brown men in their 30s and 40s), not in the same position but at a lower one. Most of my co-workers are on H1b visas so they get underpaid that way. The other trick they use is to hire you as a contractor. All of this is happening at an Indian/American outsourcing firm which is where most of this stuff happens on a regular basis - at the bottom of the industry.
After 1000 applications I gave up trying to find a managerial role (with 10 years of managerial experience abroad, plus a top 10 MBA). I was passed on by companies who hired the younger mba candidates (I was 35 at the time). I went back to my country, got a green card, moved back to America and spent months trying to find a position. I settled for a position doing something that I used in my 20s.
For a lot of people, age discrimination is just a fairy tale. But the reality is very clear: millions of Americans are overqualified for their jobs (See this article by USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/27/study-...), millions more have left the IT industry, and millions more have lost their jobs due to outsourcing or younger hires. A large percentage of people in hiring positions see employees as cattle - hence they go for the younger ones. Experience is not quantifiable, and especially not by the laughable tests that companies use nowadays for recruitment.
My life was hard, I lived in the trains of Manhattan. I lined of for food in soup kitchens for nearly two years. To get out of my situation, I worked four odd jobs simultaneously. After the biggest suffering of my life only one thing pulled me out: I took 20 years out of my resume. I deleted awards, titles, certifications, international experience, newspaper articles, publications, you name it.
Today, the job market is very clear to me. Companies are trying to compete and will hire the best candidate they can find. But, as you age life gets more and more complicated and you might fail to land a good job. Maybe you are an immigrant and your English pronunciation is lacking, maybe you are not willing to pull all nighters, or maybe you are not as good with newer technologies. Maybe one of those things is at play, but what happens when you are hired, get the highest performance review (above all your coworkers), see the young college grad fired after only two months and reflect back on your situation?
At that point, like I did, you start to think about whether age discrimination is real. For me, it is.
> you're really just taking up space for someone who needs to feed their kids, has a potential to grow, and a better place to funnel the earned money than "expensive manicure"
That's a ridiculous assertion, if someone is physically well and wants to work it's nobody's business how they spent then spend the money they earn.
Choosing to have kids or not shouldn't give you any special status in the workforce at all (though in reality it often does).
> That's a ridiculous assertion, if someone is physically well and wants to work it's nobody's business how they spent then spend the money they earn.
No. It was part of the unwritten "societal contract" that old people retire to leave place for young people to rise.
This worked for long times, but governments broke this contract decades ago by wrecking pension/retirement systems, and now the wannabe-pensioners have to work in their 70s to survive while people in their 30s are still where they were at 25 as they cannot reasonably rise up.
I have to wonder, when people used to think about medicine extending the human lifespan, did they realise it just meant another 10 years of work. What a horrible outcome. If the people who wanted to retire were allowed, then kids wouldn't struggle to find jobs. Even starter jobs are difficult to find. Anecdata, but when I was looking for a starter job the median age of a shop worker was nearly 30. All the higher up jobs being taken just stops the mobility and hurts everyone.
I don't agree it's part of the societal contract. I am already grateful to live in a world previous generations built. The wars are fought, the infrastructure is built. I get access to technology previous generations could only dream of. I can do business selling to the whole world wearing underwear sitting in my bedroom even if it's a 3rd world country.
I couldn't have asked for more of previous generations. The last thing I could complain about is people from the generation providing me with all that trying to still work and make money out of it.
> The wars are fought, the infrastructure is built.
The wars are just beginning - over water, rare resources, arable land, whatever - and the infrastructure across Western countries is rotting under our feet as maintenance was mostly skipped on.
That's the very pessimistic view. We have the longest peaceful period ever at least in the Western world and access to infrastructure previous generations could only dream about. It's true overpopulation in areas not suitable for sustaining big populations is a problem but it's difficult to predict how it plays out. It's not that people needed much reason to start wars in the past and it seems we've reached quite a stable state now at least from historical perspective.
I mean I still have living family members who remember their homes taken away, being packed on the train and transported to Syberia by Soviets so it's very hard for me not be grateful for the kind of world I get to live in.
The comment was about "making space" for younger generation. I just don't agree with that view. There is more opportunity then ever and old people still working jobs is not a problem for younger ones (although it might be a problem for them if they counted on longer retirement).
The younger generation need jobs the most, I think it's a dangerous precedent to set if there is no longer an expectation they can find a job. We're already seeing a breakdown in youth culture, attitudes to life, etc.. I know because I am part of that generation, all I see around me are people that believe there's no opportunity without some serious luck.
In the end, older people are worked to death and younger people struggle to progress past Walmart (and no, a degree or a programming gig should not be the some of the only options to jump into a career).
> If you're 66 and you're still sitting around in a corporate job, and you have no children, 9/10 you're really just taking up space for someone who needs to feed their kids, has a potential to grow, and a better place to funnel the earned money than "expensive manicure"
That seems very judgmental to me.
I don't plan to have kids due to genetic conditions and other reasons, but by your reckoning, I don't deserve a job once I age because there are other people "more deserving."
When you are young and childless you get the difficult shift/all nighter/extra travel because the other guys have families. Then when you get older and the kids are gone you get the same screwing over because the other guys have family to feed. It's always something.
We all know it's like having 2 jobs. But having kids is a choice. Don't do it if you can't pay for it or you have to keep leaning on colleagues to cover for you.
As for the prospects of other people's kids paying for my retirement, that seems very low probability given the projections for the future of social security. When planning for retirement you should assume you receive zero from social security.
Accepting to do the "difficult shift/all nighter/extra" is a choice too. Besides, not giving people with children an extra shift is morally right. A company should get extra workforce and also prioritize employee's and her family's well-being when dividing the work load.
How much of a choice depends on if you have management that thinks it's the right thing to do to impose upon the childless. If you disagree you are labeled not a team player and suffer the consequences.
So you get to hear about your coworker's day at the beach with their family while you had to work the weekend to finish up something they were supposed to do which required cancelling your date at the beach.
> If you're 66 and you're still sitting around in a corporate job, and you have no children, 9/10 you're really just taking up space for someone who needs to feed their kids, has a potential to grow, and a better place to funnel the earned money than "expensive manicure"
I agree with you in principle - the fact that aging Boomers and olders cling to their jobs and prevent younger successors from rising is a real problem. However, many of them have no choice because retirement/pension systems worldwide got fucked in the last decades.
A legacy of people in their generation with power, yes. You realize there's no moustache-twirling Boomer Conspiracy Society out there, yeah? And that some random working schlub wouldn't be invited if there was?
I have no idea what you are talking about. You elect those in power? They are your representatives. Your government is your responsibility, that's how democracy works right?
Oh, yes. "Democracy." You understand, I trust, that the individual voter has around fuck-all power and influence, yes? And the profound level of bad faith it takes to charge a working stiff with the actions of the political establishment as directed almost in its entirety by the moneyed class?
The sentiment you exhibit is indecent and inhumane.
"Taking up space" in an industry where there is serious talent shortage about everywhere in the first world and people who can barely code a sorting algorithm are hired for jobs with 6 figure salaries is just laughable argument. There are so many opportunities and so many ways to make living as a competent programmer, especially when you're young.
You're already in a privileged position by virtue of being born in technology age, having younger brain and better energy levels. It's an industry you can make it in in endless ways if you're willing to work on your skills.
If you're born in US that's another huge advantage as you can skip the language and culture part which is big barrier for many hard working and competent people. You also have access to the best market in the world and you don't need to worry about being denied entry or visa extension.
You know what's right for society? Working hard and not being an entitled brat. You have all the advantages in the world as a young English speaking person born in the first world country and you're complaining about 60+ years old trying to make living. It's honestly pathetic.
Wallstreet big banks. My sister was working for some of those and participated in hiring process. They had trouble finding anyone competent (she told me anyone who could code a simple sorting algorithm task got a resounding acceptance from the interviewers as that was very rare. Most people showing up for the interviews couldn't code at all). The work is psychologically draining because tech people are 2nd class citizens there (in comparison to front desk) and there is a lot of paperwork when submitting any code but it does pay very well.
EDIT: answering "so you applied b it to all US". I didn't, even people living in 3rd world countries can make nice money these days thanks to internet. If you live in US you can take a plane and go to the best tech hubs in the world. There are people who have to work for years just to have that chance and they need to learn the language in the meantime. There is just so much opportunity if you're already there and you were raised with access to the Internet.
LOL, I'm entrepreneur and I'm doing well. And I'm not born in the US but much less "privileged" country. I find that 66 year old US boomer ranting about "ageism" pathetic, from my point of view.
Don't want to be discriminated against? Do leetcode everyday and learn new algorithms, learn statistics, linear algebra, and everything you can about the latest and greatest neural networks.
Allow me to provide a contrarian view. I'm not disagreeing that age-discrimination does not exist, however I must say it's not always the case.
I'm 35, so I wouldn't qualify as young but neither old.
Businesses tend to recruit younger devs for few reasons:
- They can be easily convinced to work longer hours
- They are typically paid much less
However there is one trait in older devs that make them undesirable:
- They tend to carry baggage from the past. This comes in various flavors, such as biases one has regarding the path of their careers, their interpersonal relationships (social and official), technology choices etc.
The thing about biases are that the mind that nurtures them can easily justify them, thus making the very biases appear rational and logical.
Furthermore not all biases are negative.
They are a useful piece of memory that comes with experience. The question is: Can you consciously choose when to apply the bias -or- Is your mind driven compulsively to apply them indiscriminately?
I would argue that victimhood about agism does not help anybody. If you are in a craft, where the barrier to entry is low, be prepared to compete with the fresh crop of talent coming in.
There's a lot more I could write about this. But I leave it for another time.
> - They tend to carry baggage from the past. This comes in various flavors, such as biases one has regarding the path of their careers, their interpersonal relationships (social and official), technology choices etc.
When one begins the career, one keeps hearing in the interviews "we want more experience". Ok then, 10 years down the road and they say "it's not experience what you've acquired, but bias".
Just whatever it takes to lowball you, playing the nasty "you're not worthy" interview game. The "bias" is the same bollocks as an "inexperience" (from the perspective of the interview negotiations).
> Just whatever it takes to lowball you, playing the nasty "you're not worthy" interview game.
I find this ultra terrifying. This is an advanced technical field yet the same old "we're the gateway we'll use it against you -- future colleague -- without hesitating". Some things never change
i hire junior devs directly out of school, because that's the only place where i get unbiased and trainable people.
that said, i think bias peaks after a few years, after that, people get more and more experience that helps them keep their bias in check.
i was like that. i had a strong bias against programming languages that i didn't know anything about. it was prejudice, pure and simple. but as i learned more and more, i realized the errors of my ways, and bias was replaced by experience.
> I would argue that victimhood about agism does not help anybody. If you are in a craft, where the barrier to entry is low, be prepared to compete with the fresh crop of talent coming in.
Not a fair competition if the people hiring are biased by a false notion of "younger === better", when I was young I noticed that the older devs had their shit together in ways I didn't and I made an effort to learn from them (things like thorough documentation, keeping a log of things that broke for next time, writing the code, then rewriting it to it's simplest form, the avoidance of 'clever' code and clarity over clever that kind of thing).
As for biases, yeah it is easy to get jaded and see "Super shiny Foo" as another Bar that you dealt with a decade ago with the same mistakes (and to an extent that can be true) but the world turns.
I've joked for decades that if you want to know what next years hotness will be look at what the academics in the field where doing 20-25 years ago.
After all, experience is learning from your mistakes, wisdom is learning from other peoples.
While I agree, I think a bigger problem is that the fresh crop of talent has mechanisms to compete that achieve both ageism and a reduction in efficiency on par with full blown institutional dementia.
Eternal September in design and frameworks is so popular largely since it eliminates the problem of HR looking for the most years of experience. HR's terrible innefficiency is going to hurt someone, but the actual results are very interesting. In multiple framework cycles in industry one can see many a problem just below the threshhold of importance to a todo app might have initial structure to be solved by a first designer, then that structure is written over in a redesign, then a new cycle fixes another problem that had a clear fix in the old design, now it will be hard and therefore done incorrectly in a way that ensures it will never get solved given the frameworks cycles of starting over with new developers. The end result is a dead pile of mush that can't compete with a new framework with fresh style for todo apps.
Naturally these behaviors are not some problem with employees, the overall restructuring of industry has made it important to get repaid for redoing things over and over the wrong way such that there is always something important to get credit for. There is no longer an industry that keeps workers for life because it is profiting and accepts that their later work has diminishing returns because all the low hanging fruit was fixed long ago.
"Businesses tend to recruit younger devs for few reasons:
- They can be easily convinced to work longer hours
- They are typically paid much less"
Older workers and younger workers are paid the same way - they agree on a salary when they start working and that's what they're paid. It's so common on HN to see age discrimination dismissed as not real because of pay. That argument doesn't make any sense. The same goes for working conditions. If you're hiring someone for a position that requires you to work certain hours, that doesn't really have anything to do with the age of the applicant.
And anyway, this article wasn't about software development, which has unique characteristics.
> Older workers and younger workers are paid the same way - they agree on a salary when they start working and that's what they're paid.
When I was freshly out of university, it was easy to play various tricks on me, such as agreeing on a salary for 40 hours a week, and then convincing me to do a lot of unpaid overtime. (I am not even talking about using various dirty tricks; just asking me nicely would do, because I had no idea of value of my time and zero negotiation skills.) If you tried to do the same thing to me now, I would be much better at keeping my boundaries.
Should that happen, you're better off not working for that company anyway. Nobody wants to seldom hire young-er people for the good reasons.
Meanwhile, I find that there are increasingly more opportunities for experienced devs in their 30's and 40's. I suspect boomers were under the impression that 40 was already 'not so young' or 'too old' in terms of performance/productivity, but that's a vision from 1960, not 2019. People are slow to adapt to demographic realities, it's a generation's game.
Merely placing resumes onto lots of piles of other resumes is a losing strategy for job seekers because the cost of doing the same thing for competitors is so low, and as you noted, it’s easy to get lost in the crowd.
As a hiring manager, I’d much rather hire someone whose work I already know or based on a personal recommendation from someone whose opinion I value. Combing through resumes is risky and time consuming. Please (!) help me help you by dragging yourself out of the pool of resumes and into one of the top two categories.
That may be true. I don’t have enough in this game to follow the literature. I’m responding to the above post and here with anecdotal experience.
What it suggestsed to me is we need to talk about social skills necessary to navigate roles and relationships between young managers and older workers.
When dealing with junior and inexperienced colleagues, the power relationship seems more ‘natural’. People can reference many years of clear social hierarchies—parent-child, teacher-student, adult-child.
Where is the template for the reverse relationship? Younger, and socially/life inexperienced managers, with ‘junior’ workers who are older by years, and maybe socially very experienced.
Let’s face it, no manager wants to hire someone who threatens their position. And I’ve see the workers who feel a new older worker also threatens their growth trajectory in the company—as if you’re jumping the line.
In my experience some of these problems change dynamic when you work for small businesses, and flatter organizations.
That stereotyping is textbook ageism. It’s also incorrectly assuming that younger developers don’t have biases — we should rewrite everything in …! is a joke for a reason — all people do and a key life skill is learning to recognize and correct for them.
> They tend to carry baggage from the past. This comes in various flavors, such as biases one has regarding the path of their careers, their interpersonal relationships (social and official), technology choices etc.
this happens as soon as you switch positions or companies - even as early as your twenties.
For example, think of all the people who share their learnings (at work, on Medium, etc) about “this is how we did X at [unicorn company].”
It may be that we are more biased to opinions of people who are similar to us, and dismiss the opinions of those who don’t fit our demographic.
yup, bias is acquired as soon as you start working. against everything you don't know. then, as you learn different ways in your next job your bias will (hopefully) be challenged and you'll slowly get rid of it.
I work in a team which is oldboy's club. I tried various new ways and technologies to make everyone's life easier. But they always shoot down saying "it is running fine". The software is so old and tweaked number of times. I am surprised we have a functional software despite having so many obvious flaws.
I’m having difficulty finding a full-time role because I fear that, in my 50s, I’ve been thrown out with the trash in favor of “new blood.”
How is this claim falsifiable?
London admits having won no major awards recently in a competitive industry. New York comes across as high falutin’. Maybe they’re overpriced for what they bring to the table. Maybe they’re woe-is-me or brash in person too.
In software, productivity is hard to measure. The pressure to keep costs down is strong. As salary expectations rise, we’ve got to up our game. One route is specializing in a niche of a niche, but that is a risky approach. Stack talents to make unique combinations. Every organization needs project and technical management. Talk to people who know, like, and trust you about the challenges of what they’re trying to do at work and what you can do to solve it. Learn how to grow the business. Start your own business or go out as a freelancer.
Sure, we’d all like to sit at the same desk doing the same job watching the raises and perks pile in. Expect to hit a ceiling with that approach. I miss the days of having one problem to focus on for weeks at a time. These days, I’m not just feeding my own family but making sure that lots of other families are staying fed too. That’s a much harder job.
I've been in this industry for a while. I started out as a system administrator writing a lot of bash and Perl scripts, taking care of mail servers and DNS, and doing a lot of corporate backups. That job is now called "DevOps", and I've made the transition.
I now work in Python 3, Django, Ruby, JavaScript, Kubernetes, and AWS. I haven't been standing still, and I firmly believe the key to avoiding career stagnation is to be constantly learning and educating yourself and never being satisfied with the status quo.
I've been fortunate, as a remote worker, that I haven't really experienced severe negative consequences (at least not yet...knock on wood) from age discrimination. Yet the shadow of ageism is always there, and I hear stories from friends about incredibly insensitive and cringe-worthy age discrimination.
I'm content with my role as a "grey beard" (I'm actually clean-shaven now, but back in the day I had a huge red UNIX hacker beard). But I'm not happy with the way the tech industry treats older workers. I'm supportive of legal protections for older workers in tech. We are not all dinosaurs. Many of us know, for instance, how to sniff out fads from real forward leaps, and we have deep industry experience that can be leveraged by employers open-minded enough to hire us.