I'm the CTO at a startup and I often have to call out the founders and employees for ageism. I resent that they say things that make me think they wouldn't take hiring an experienced engineer seriously.
I resent that they think my profession is best served by dumb happy newbies with no private life.
I refuse to tolerate this in any company I work for and I will ceaselessly call them out for this ageism.
I'm 24 years old and I will not stop programming just because I eventually grow a unix beard.
I'm in my 40s now, and the number of times I've been brought into a startup suffering under the plague of 20-something founder's grandiose ideas of how things should be done vs. the nearly 20 years of real world experience that says otherwise would surprise you.
Youth might fuel the launch of your product, but experience will help it keep flying.
When you get older, several things work against you to jump into SV culture:
- You are not as easily impressed by or eager to try new technologies. (many of which are new spins on old ideas you've seen before.)
- You fail to see the appeal of the types of technology younger people are using. Or, you see the switching costs as too high to move away from what you are using now.
- Your lack of ignorance leads you to (often correctly) identify that an idea will lead nowhere. The problem is sometimes you are wrong.
I think the best way to fight against ageism is to make an effort to retain an open mind and curiosity. Try new things, even if you think they are going not be worth your time. Try to see the novelty in things that may seem to be a rehash of old ideas. Realize that no matter how stupid an idea sounds, sometimes it's worth trying, because you can't always predict the future, no matter how much you've seen.
Just think of the number of people on HN who have posted about how they don't understand Facebook, Twitter, or shoot down some whiz bang new technology. I've done it sometimes myself. Engineers are naturally skeptical, but this skepticism can grow out of control. It's fine in moderation but there's a tendency for this type of perspective to grow with age naturally, and that can ultimately undermine your ability to recognize and execute on genuinely novel, good ideas.
If I could hire someone who had both extensive experience but did not have a chip on their shoulder and lived on the edge of the curve like a 20 year old I'd do it. But it's pretty hard to not have a chip on your shoulder in this industry after a decade or two, and it's hard to continue to adopt the latest technology and not just settle in at some point along the way.
I think the best way to fight against ageism is to make an effort to retain an open mind and curiosity.
The problem is that doesn't fight ageism. It panders to it.
Ageism is when you don't get treated fairly just because of your age - no matter how curious and open minded you may or may not be.
If somebody things I'm closed minded and incurious because I'm in my forties they are being ageist. They are the one with a problem. Simples.
You fight ageism by pointing out bigoted asshattery when you encounter it. You fight it by not staying quiet. You fight it by lobbying to make it illegal. You fight it by giving people concrete advice on how to deal with it in the workplace.
You don't fight it by trying extra hard to demonstrate that their bigotry doesn't apply to you. That's a coping strategy. Not a fighting strategy.
> Engineers are naturally skeptical, but this skepticism can grow out of control.
You've hit on one of the most important quality filters here. If someone is really, deeply intelligent, one of their analysis tasks will include a diligent try at making your idea work. The weirder your idea, the more curious about it they will be.
> Just think of the number of people on HN who have posted about how they don't understand Facebook, Twitter, or shoot down some whiz bang new technology. I've done it sometimes myself. Engineers are naturally skeptical, but this skepticism can grow out of control. It's fine in moderation but there's a tendency for this type of perspective to grow with age naturally, and that can ultimately undermine your ability to recognize and execute on genuinely novel, good ideas.
This is so very true. I was pretty young when twitter first came but remember being incredibly skeptical about the idea. Although to be frank, the way twitter is being used to consume information (as a news feed) was not how it was being thought of then. However, the greater point still remains: If you are skeptical of nascent ideas, you will never let them grow or become mature.
I'm not sure why it should be a "dirty secret" that the tech world is predominantly driven by younger people who may at times be wont to push older people aside as suits their needs. Welcome to our capacity to be jerks if we indulge ourselves in that direction, as many will. It works the other way too, as all too many younger people can attest as they have occasionally been treated like dirt by those who are older.
Is this good or fair when it does happen? No.
Is it illegal? Sometimes, but making formal proof is daunting at best and usually not possible.
Thus, it comes down to this: treat others as you yourself would want to be treated. If a workplace reflects that ethic, it will be a place where old and young alike will want to work and where older workers will receive their due as befits their experience, skills, and performance, good or bad; if it does not reflect that ethic, it is a place to avoid if at all possible.
While Silicon Valley may represent the ageism problem in a particularly acute way owing to its youth culture, it really is no different from anywhere else. There is the good and the bad, and we each need to do what we can to uphold a high standard of common decency for ourselves and to make sure others do the same. It may not be a complete answer but it can help a lot in our immediate work environments and that will go a lot farther toward solving the problem than the law ever can.
There are two countervailing trends here: one is the increasing level of experience and the other is the decreasing level of hipness (hear me out, please). As an older engineer (early 40's), I speak from experience.
When I was young, I thought my designs were excellent, because they were the best things I had done so far. I was able to look around at amazing code (NT kernel, for example; open source was much less prevalent back then) so I realized there was a continuum of excellence. After five years, I looked back as some of my earlier code and it looked bad. I did the same five years later and had a similar experience. After that, improvement came by degrees and was more related to breadth of experience in different domains. So it's clear to me that "older" people, in my profession, at least, are usually more capable than a younger person at this particular skill.
That said, there is the "hipness" factor, for lack of a better word, and it's very real. Older people tend to get set in their ways and do what they do. If they like watching TV, they'll keep up with their favorite shows. If they like sports, they'll keep up with their teams. They are unlikely to know the hottest bands or Internet memes. They just don't keep up with current culture, which happens to be largely youth culture. They might like their iPhone or Android and know how to use it. But the fact is, that most older people merely use technology. They don't bury themselves in it every day. So when they talk to someone younger about culture or technology, they seem out of touch.
As someone who follows technology, it's pretty lonely in my cohort. There's literally nothing to talk about in the area that holds a large part of my interest.
I think the people under consideration here are biasing against the experience factor in favor of the hipness factor because it's just so apparent. It literally takes a couple of minutes of conversation before determining that the older person is "clueless".
If a person want's to work in technology (e.g., in a Bay Area startup) and they don't keep up with technology and/or culture, they are going to have a hard time.
The thing is, Randy did get hired once he shaved his head and started dressing down.
This isn't ageism, it's a filter against older people who are unable to adapt themselves to the changing environment. It's like classic cars: no-one is going to buy a neglected rust bucket that hasn't been serviced since the 1960s. Yet if the car is loved and cared for it can be worth millions (http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/ferrari-250-GTO-sells-for...).
Startups.. the web.. the valley.. they all thrive on new ideas. On people who keep their mind open to new ideas. Older people who are both relevant and still have "that".. are rare. Very rare. But if you can find one, they're priceless.
What I'm hearing from many posters in these comments is my level of fashion-conciousness indicates how innovative I am. I think it's a big mistake to judge a candidate's aptitude for the work by how hip they look. This is the last industry I thought we'd have to face this kind of thing in.
It's not just about adaption, looking good/trendy is about first impressions and signaling that you'll fit in with the "cool" culture at a certain company. I've known young people who dressed badly not do well either, and I've often counseled them to make some effort with their appearance and it makes a huge difference, even very little things like buying shirts that fit or paying money for a real haircut. We'd love it to be a pure meritocracy, but at the end of the day what you look like matters to other humans.
Is this essentially a Web 2.0/Bay Area issue? I recently went to a Java User Group meeting on the east coast where the presenter and about 60% of the audience....had grey hair.
I think I may have been the 2nd or 3rd youngest person at the meeting and I'm 30....
I'm the 2nd youngest person at my current place of employment in the finance domain. I'm hoping that means by 40 yrs old there will be lot's of work and I can contract for $150/hr or whatever by then as a lot of the brick and mortars are heavily entrenched in the JEE stack and if this board is any indication there will be a dearth of JEE talent . Even in the Java space I can’t say I’ve seen too many 80yr old developers. But at least your career is not dead at 40.
I’ve developed in Python professionally in the past and am teaching myself RoR now for both personal use and I have to admit I like writing in those languages more. But after reading articles like this and going out to San Francisco seeing the environment first hand I have to be honest when saying that I would be a little tentative jumping out there feet first.
I've had someone in a YC funded company flat-out tell me that it was going to be a problem for me. (43, and no, he wasn't in the process of hiring me.)
It's not clear from your comment if it was an interview situation, or if it was casual conversation. If the latter, you should call them out.
I'm a fellow 43-year-old. I invest in early-stage startups, and that includes YC companies. I wouldn't invest in a company with that attitude for a very simple reason: they are handicapping themselves. I know what I'm capable of doing right now compared to when I was 25. Maybe I would be a great complement to my 25-year-old self.
The attitude reminds me of this:
"Bill Gates recalls once being invited to speak in Saudi Arabia and finding himself facing a segregated audience. Four-fifths of the listeners were men, on the left. The remaining one-fifth were women, all covered in black cloaks and veils, on the right. A partition separated the two groups. Toward the end, in the question-and-answer session, a member of the audience noted that Saudi Arabia aimed to be one of the Top 10 countries in the world in technology by 2010 and asked if that was realistic. “Well, if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent in the country,” Gates said, “you’re not going to get too close to the Top 10.” The small group on the right erupted in wild cheering."
This is America. Get litigious! Things are illegal for a reason. They can't ask about your age or family status.
When your CEO gets up and says "We don't hire anybody over 28 years old," a dozen lawsuits should be filed within a week. It's amazing people let other people get away with ruling the world this way.
*edit: I had over/under switched in the CEO quote. Fixed.
For what it's worth, it wouldn't be a problem for you at all here (MongoHQ). Anecdotally, I don't think it would be a problem at the more desirable YC companies either.
There are companies that are the opposite in the Bay Area. Almost everyone where I work is over 30, with a median age around 40. These companies tend to be in the suburban south bay and the peninsula although vs SF & Berkeley.
They are calling this "a secret"? - more like overt bigotry from what I have seen. Isn't Y-Combinator one of the worst offenders? From what I have read Paul Graham brags actually about his age discrimination.
Eventually, some enterprising law firm is going to make a bundle. The legal culture in SV (WSGR and their ilk) are not steeped in class-action suits, several folks are going to get their asses kicked from the legal defense, if nothing else.
I'm 37 and have not been concerned. If I compare my current work to that I did a decade ago, it's obvious to me how much better I am -- faster, better at design, fewer bugs, etc. AFAIK, no one has turned me down for work because I'm too old. Perhaps they've chosen someone younger and less expensive, but that's fine by me -- maybe not a rational choice, but not one based on discrimination.
Other than code quality, how was I different as a 25 year-old? Much more likely to adopt new technologies, libraries, etc. because they were shiny and hyped. Did this serve me well? Sometimes I got lucky, but I also wasted a lot of time figuring out the hard way that Technology X was way too bleeding edge for production. I was way too willing to go along with (or even suggest!), massive, all-things-to-all-people architectures which looked great as block diagrams but didn't match up with timelines, project risk, etc. Now, I push for incremental change over big bang projects.
One way I've regressed in the eyes of an employer: I'm no longer willing to put in long hours in exchange for vague promises of future pay-outs (bonus, promotion, whatever).
I'm 37, and honestly this has started to scare me over the past couple years.
This is a coping strategy - not a fighting strategy - but think about options for working by/for yourself.
Playing the grizzled consultant rich in lessons learned can play well. You're, unfortunately, working with the opposite age bias that anybody under 30 doesn't know what they're talking about.
Ageism wasn't a major factor - but it was a minor one - when I decided to start my own company up again when I hit forty.
I figure that I'm not going to discriminate against myself ;-)
I bet many of these hiring managers don't really know what they're doing, so they're doing what everyone else is doing. This protects them from looking stupid, which many people fear more than actual failure. Some of these businesses will succeed but in general failure to get hired by someone who doesn't know what they are doing is, for the truly qualified, a good outcome.
I doubt that truly qualified people are being turned away for age. I doubt that really capable companies are that hung up on age. I do believe that there is discrimination among _under_ qualified people. Given the importance of learning experiences and networking and luck, this is probably a serious disadvantage to older under-qualified people. It certainly isn't fair. But anyone who is under-qualified really should think more about making themselves more qualified than looking around for someone to make things fair.
(That needn't be extended to race or gender discrimination law. Those are targeting structural disadvantages thought to be outside the control of the discriminated, e.g. they lack the same opportunity to improve their own qualifications. And they are often intended to make it more clear that the economy offers opportunities to all comers, in the face of a variety of perceptions. Whether you agree with those arguments or not, I don't see how they apply to people getting older.)
I doubt that truly qualified people are being turned away for age. I doubt that really capable companies are that hung up on age.
I don't. Not even a little bit.
I saw it fifteen years ago when I was able to snap up amazingly talented developers that were piteously grateful for the opportunity after being turned down for similar positions elsewhere due to their age.
I see it now where every decent developer I know past 35 I've discussed it with has some variation of the "I'm not ageist - it's just that old developers are inflexible blah blah etc." story to tell and are noticing it becoming more of a problem as the years go by.
Saw it earlier this week when a conversation with a potential client completely derailed after they found out I was 42.
As Silicon Valley matures, I think age bias will become less prevalent. I think there will be an inflection point where novelty is going to have to give way to quality. Facebook is illustrative. Facebook is exactly what you'd expect to get if you hired a bunch of recent college graduates to build something: creative, but otherwise utter crap. It's not what you would get if you hired a team of seasoned professionals to build a product with well-defined requirements. At some point, I think in the near future, you'll see Facebook (and the other companies like it) transition from the former into the latter.
It's not exactly an "age" bias, it's a bias against people that aren't like them.
If I was hiring a CEO, someone who would be my boss, I'm definitely going to pick someone that seems like a person I could get along with. If a guy walks into the interview with a suit on and I'm wearing jeans and a hoodie, it could be a sign that we aren't going to get along all that well.
If the old guy came in and seemed like he could relate to me though, I wouldn't have a problem at all hiring him.
The results of this are blatantly clear when you view any company's "what's it like to work here". Video. It's embarrassing to see companies trying to recruit and having their prejudices on full display. what is worse, is they are not smart enough to even realize that they made a video of 30 white male 24 year olds.
Young people are naive and unencumbered, so a few older VCs can use their cheap and highly skilled labor to make a lot of money. Older people aren't such suckers.
This. Many startups claim to offer "competitive" salaries, but really only mean "competitive for someone with little experience".
Now here's the question, if I'm asking for twice what a company claims that they can afford, are they better off employing me, or two (or three) engineers with little experience?
It's interesting to compare with other professions.
I was out for drinks recently with some people who were programmers as well as others some of whom were doctors.
The mean age was probably about 27. A 27 year old developer is a grizzled vet whereas a 27 year old doctor is considered a noob at the start of their career.
A real issue, but lame scope. 50 is really a wall... you run into all sorts of 50-somethings who are basically wandering souls doing random consulting things after they get RIF'ed from some big corporation.
It's not a phenomenon specific to Silicon Valley. But insular culture of SV is more well known, but exists anywhere there is a cluster of particular types of business.
It's not just old guys, you know. 8 years ago, I was able to design the same quality of websites, yet no one gave a fuck because I was 'too young' according to them. Today, they are ready to pay me thousands of dollars because I have the age factor and a couple of white hairs. Many people are under the wrong notion that age = experience. While it may be partially true, it isn't all the time. When you're young, you have the urge (and the energy) to make some really bold choices, which you will think twice to make when you reach a certain age (especially when you're married, have kids, etc..). So yeah....age bias sucks!!
Back in the distant past when I was in my 20's I was the Technical Director of a company (kinda-sorta CTOish equivalent). One of the guys I hired in ops was in his late forties, early fifties.
We worked in the same office.
We regularly got great entertainment value from people who had come to talk to me naturally walked over to the nicely dressed distinguished looking guy at the large desk (needed for building new kit) rather than the pony tailed youth in the corner ;)
The thing is, children say this all the time whilst getting scolded/warned/informed too. While I agree one shouldn't be written off immediately due to age, my experience is that in the case of younger people, they actually are inexperienced and naive and simply pitch a fit, blaming discrimination and everything/anything else, because they fail to recognize that about themselves.
I am not convinced that there is something inherently special with the ways young people consume technology that only other young people have mystical insight towards. There are people in their fifties on HN, tweeting away before twitter was cool and avidly using Pinterest. I think it is more about what you find interesting rather than how old you are.
After all, I would think that 80-90% of toys are designed by people who are not between the ages of 3-9. I am fairly certain these toys are profitable.
This line of thought doesn't make sense to me, because marketers are in the same business of getting into the heads of the 18-25 demographic and they seem to do pretty well at it despite not being 18-25-year-olds themselves.
When I started in IT I found that it had alot of skilled people, though the bias was against younger people. As I grew older I saw the levels of talent drop and the age lower with a bias towards younger people. The real crux is not the ability to do the job but the HR cock-blocking of anybody who has more skills than the job at hand, which is in general older people. This and the mentality of dumbing down wages also bias towards getting younger people in.
The whole situation has now got to the stage that companies shun talent if it is over a certain age over getting somebody younger for a cheaper price. They then find it hard to find somebody with the skillset who will take the job for the wage they offer and then cry skill shortage.
There are exceptions, as with any rule but you will notice alot of talented mid-life IT professionals changing career just becasue they are sick of the office politics.
I have worked with old and young managers, both good and bad but the real difference was the good ones knew or had done the job they are managing and the ones not so good had as much IT skill as most school leavers but are great at dealing with HR and in that HR love them.
Only real way is to start your own company, your own rules and with that age is what you make it.
[+] [-] codewright|13 years ago|reply
Straight talk:
I'm the CTO at a startup and I often have to call out the founders and employees for ageism. I resent that they say things that make me think they wouldn't take hiring an experienced engineer seriously.
I resent that they think my profession is best served by dumb happy newbies with no private life.
I refuse to tolerate this in any company I work for and I will ceaselessly call them out for this ageism.
I'm 24 years old and I will not stop programming just because I eventually grow a unix beard.
[+] [-] nasalgoat|13 years ago|reply
Youth might fuel the launch of your product, but experience will help it keep flying.
[+] [-] gfodor|13 years ago|reply
- You are not as easily impressed by or eager to try new technologies. (many of which are new spins on old ideas you've seen before.)
- You fail to see the appeal of the types of technology younger people are using. Or, you see the switching costs as too high to move away from what you are using now.
- Your lack of ignorance leads you to (often correctly) identify that an idea will lead nowhere. The problem is sometimes you are wrong.
I think the best way to fight against ageism is to make an effort to retain an open mind and curiosity. Try new things, even if you think they are going not be worth your time. Try to see the novelty in things that may seem to be a rehash of old ideas. Realize that no matter how stupid an idea sounds, sometimes it's worth trying, because you can't always predict the future, no matter how much you've seen.
Just think of the number of people on HN who have posted about how they don't understand Facebook, Twitter, or shoot down some whiz bang new technology. I've done it sometimes myself. Engineers are naturally skeptical, but this skepticism can grow out of control. It's fine in moderation but there's a tendency for this type of perspective to grow with age naturally, and that can ultimately undermine your ability to recognize and execute on genuinely novel, good ideas.
If I could hire someone who had both extensive experience but did not have a chip on their shoulder and lived on the edge of the curve like a 20 year old I'd do it. But it's pretty hard to not have a chip on your shoulder in this industry after a decade or two, and it's hard to continue to adopt the latest technology and not just settle in at some point along the way.
[+] [-] adrianhoward|13 years ago|reply
The problem is that doesn't fight ageism. It panders to it.
Ageism is when you don't get treated fairly just because of your age - no matter how curious and open minded you may or may not be.
If somebody things I'm closed minded and incurious because I'm in my forties they are being ageist. They are the one with a problem. Simples.
You fight ageism by pointing out bigoted asshattery when you encounter it. You fight it by not staying quiet. You fight it by lobbying to make it illegal. You fight it by giving people concrete advice on how to deal with it in the workplace.
You don't fight it by trying extra hard to demonstrate that their bigotry doesn't apply to you. That's a coping strategy. Not a fighting strategy.
[+] [-] stcredzero|13 years ago|reply
You've hit on one of the most important quality filters here. If someone is really, deeply intelligent, one of their analysis tasks will include a diligent try at making your idea work. The weirder your idea, the more curious about it they will be.
[+] [-] eshvk|13 years ago|reply
This is so very true. I was pretty young when twitter first came but remember being incredibly skeptical about the idea. Although to be frank, the way twitter is being used to consume information (as a news feed) was not how it was being thought of then. However, the greater point still remains: If you are skeptical of nascent ideas, you will never let them grow or become mature.
[+] [-] kemiller|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kolbe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grellas|13 years ago|reply
Is this good or fair when it does happen? No.
Is it illegal? Sometimes, but making formal proof is daunting at best and usually not possible.
Thus, it comes down to this: treat others as you yourself would want to be treated. If a workplace reflects that ethic, it will be a place where old and young alike will want to work and where older workers will receive their due as befits their experience, skills, and performance, good or bad; if it does not reflect that ethic, it is a place to avoid if at all possible.
While Silicon Valley may represent the ageism problem in a particularly acute way owing to its youth culture, it really is no different from anywhere else. There is the good and the bad, and we each need to do what we can to uphold a high standard of common decency for ourselves and to make sure others do the same. It may not be a complete answer but it can help a lot in our immediate work environments and that will go a lot farther toward solving the problem than the law ever can.
[+] [-] Todd|13 years ago|reply
When I was young, I thought my designs were excellent, because they were the best things I had done so far. I was able to look around at amazing code (NT kernel, for example; open source was much less prevalent back then) so I realized there was a continuum of excellence. After five years, I looked back as some of my earlier code and it looked bad. I did the same five years later and had a similar experience. After that, improvement came by degrees and was more related to breadth of experience in different domains. So it's clear to me that "older" people, in my profession, at least, are usually more capable than a younger person at this particular skill.
That said, there is the "hipness" factor, for lack of a better word, and it's very real. Older people tend to get set in their ways and do what they do. If they like watching TV, they'll keep up with their favorite shows. If they like sports, they'll keep up with their teams. They are unlikely to know the hottest bands or Internet memes. They just don't keep up with current culture, which happens to be largely youth culture. They might like their iPhone or Android and know how to use it. But the fact is, that most older people merely use technology. They don't bury themselves in it every day. So when they talk to someone younger about culture or technology, they seem out of touch.
As someone who follows technology, it's pretty lonely in my cohort. There's literally nothing to talk about in the area that holds a large part of my interest.
I think the people under consideration here are biasing against the experience factor in favor of the hipness factor because it's just so apparent. It literally takes a couple of minutes of conversation before determining that the older person is "clueless".
If a person want's to work in technology (e.g., in a Bay Area startup) and they don't keep up with technology and/or culture, they are going to have a hard time.
[+] [-] radicalbyte|13 years ago|reply
This isn't ageism, it's a filter against older people who are unable to adapt themselves to the changing environment. It's like classic cars: no-one is going to buy a neglected rust bucket that hasn't been serviced since the 1960s. Yet if the car is loved and cared for it can be worth millions (http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/ferrari-250-GTO-sells-for...).
Startups.. the web.. the valley.. they all thrive on new ideas. On people who keep their mind open to new ideas. Older people who are both relevant and still have "that".. are rare. Very rare. But if you can find one, they're priceless.
[+] [-] samspot|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JVIDEL|13 years ago|reply
And fashion means nothing, just that you read fashion blogs. The guys who invented the internet in the late 1960s wore 1950 dork clothes.
It doesn't matters.
[+] [-] mamoswined|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] southphillyman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diego|13 years ago|reply
I'm a fellow 43-year-old. I invest in early-stage startups, and that includes YC companies. I wouldn't invest in a company with that attitude for a very simple reason: they are handicapping themselves. I know what I'm capable of doing right now compared to when I was 25. Maybe I would be a great complement to my 25-year-old self.
The attitude reminds me of this:
"Bill Gates recalls once being invited to speak in Saudi Arabia and finding himself facing a segregated audience. Four-fifths of the listeners were men, on the left. The remaining one-fifth were women, all covered in black cloaks and veils, on the right. A partition separated the two groups. Toward the end, in the question-and-answer session, a member of the audience noted that Saudi Arabia aimed to be one of the Top 10 countries in the world in technology by 2010 and asked if that was realistic. “Well, if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent in the country,” Gates said, “you’re not going to get too close to the Top 10.” The small group on the right erupted in wild cheering."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?pa...
[+] [-] smacktoward|13 years ago|reply
That was five years ago, so I can only assume that now I'm completely useless for anything beyond gumming food into a paste-like consistency.
[+] [-] seiji|13 years ago|reply
When your CEO gets up and says "We don't hire anybody over 28 years old," a dozen lawsuits should be filed within a week. It's amazing people let other people get away with ruling the world this way.
*edit: I had over/under switched in the CEO quote. Fixed.
[+] [-] mrkurt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mahyarm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LastManStanding|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpdoctor|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpratt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ShabbyDoo|13 years ago|reply
Other than code quality, how was I different as a 25 year-old? Much more likely to adopt new technologies, libraries, etc. because they were shiny and hyped. Did this serve me well? Sometimes I got lucky, but I also wasted a lot of time figuring out the hard way that Technology X was way too bleeding edge for production. I was way too willing to go along with (or even suggest!), massive, all-things-to-all-people architectures which looked great as block diagrams but didn't match up with timelines, project risk, etc. Now, I push for incremental change over big bang projects.
One way I've regressed in the eyes of an employer: I'm no longer willing to put in long hours in exchange for vague promises of future pay-outs (bonus, promotion, whatever).
[+] [-] kami8845|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianhoward|13 years ago|reply
This is a coping strategy - not a fighting strategy - but think about options for working by/for yourself.
Playing the grizzled consultant rich in lessons learned can play well. You're, unfortunately, working with the opposite age bias that anybody under 30 doesn't know what they're talking about.
Ageism wasn't a major factor - but it was a minor one - when I decided to start my own company up again when I hit forty.
I figure that I'm not going to discriminate against myself ;-)
[+] [-] pfortuny|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balakk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callmeed|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chernevik|13 years ago|reply
I doubt that truly qualified people are being turned away for age. I doubt that really capable companies are that hung up on age. I do believe that there is discrimination among _under_ qualified people. Given the importance of learning experiences and networking and luck, this is probably a serious disadvantage to older under-qualified people. It certainly isn't fair. But anyone who is under-qualified really should think more about making themselves more qualified than looking around for someone to make things fair.
(That needn't be extended to race or gender discrimination law. Those are targeting structural disadvantages thought to be outside the control of the discriminated, e.g. they lack the same opportunity to improve their own qualifications. And they are often intended to make it more clear that the economy offers opportunities to all comers, in the face of a variety of perceptions. Whether you agree with those arguments or not, I don't see how they apply to people getting older.)
[+] [-] adrianhoward|13 years ago|reply
I don't. Not even a little bit.
I saw it fifteen years ago when I was able to snap up amazingly talented developers that were piteously grateful for the opportunity after being turned down for similar positions elsewhere due to their age.
I see it now where every decent developer I know past 35 I've discussed it with has some variation of the "I'm not ageist - it's just that old developers are inflexible blah blah etc." story to tell and are noticing it becoming more of a problem as the years go by.
Saw it earlier this week when a conversation with a potential client completely derailed after they found out I was 42.
This shit happens all the time.
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RandallBrown|13 years ago|reply
If I was hiring a CEO, someone who would be my boss, I'm definitely going to pick someone that seems like a person I could get along with. If a guy walks into the interview with a suit on and I'm wearing jeans and a hoodie, it could be a sign that we aren't going to get along all that well.
If the old guy came in and seemed like he could relate to me though, I wouldn't have a problem at all hiring him.
[+] [-] codeonfire|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xradionut|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yters|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pacaro|13 years ago|reply
Now here's the question, if I'm asking for twice what a company claims that they can afford, are they better off employing me, or two (or three) engineers with little experience?
More and cheaper may be better, YMMV
[+] [-] jiggy2011|13 years ago|reply
I was out for drinks recently with some people who were programmers as well as others some of whom were doctors.
The mean age was probably about 27. A 27 year old developer is a grizzled vet whereas a 27 year old doctor is considered a noob at the start of their career.
[+] [-] Spooky23|13 years ago|reply
It's not a phenomenon specific to Silicon Valley. But insular culture of SV is more well known, but exists anywhere there is a cluster of particular types of business.
[+] [-] salimmadjd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neya|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianhoward|13 years ago|reply
Back in the distant past when I was in my 20's I was the Technical Director of a company (kinda-sorta CTOish equivalent). One of the guys I hired in ops was in his late forties, early fifties.
We worked in the same office.
We regularly got great entertainment value from people who had come to talk to me naturally walked over to the nicely dressed distinguished looking guy at the large desk (needed for building new kit) rather than the pony tailed youth in the corner ;)
[+] [-] cookiecaper|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heyrhett|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiggy2011|13 years ago|reply
It's probably difficult for a 40 something year old to know how to design an application for this crowd.
[+] [-] eshvk|13 years ago|reply
After all, I would think that 80-90% of toys are designed by people who are not between the ages of 3-9. I am fairly certain these toys are profitable.
[+] [-] mattdeboard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|13 years ago|reply
EDIT: Some stats here - http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/22/social-media-demographics-...
Worth noting that on that chart, HN has the second lowest avg age.
[+] [-] Zenst|13 years ago|reply
The whole situation has now got to the stage that companies shun talent if it is over a certain age over getting somebody younger for a cheaper price. They then find it hard to find somebody with the skillset who will take the job for the wage they offer and then cry skill shortage.
There are exceptions, as with any rule but you will notice alot of talented mid-life IT professionals changing career just becasue they are sick of the office politics.
I have worked with old and young managers, both good and bad but the real difference was the good ones knew or had done the job they are managing and the ones not so good had as much IT skill as most school leavers but are great at dealing with HR and in that HR love them.
Only real way is to start your own company, your own rules and with that age is what you make it.