The Brutal Ageism of Tech (2014) | Hacker News Reader

The Brutal Ageism of Tech (2014)

newrepublic.com

24 pointsgoodJobWalrus28 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7930428

It looks like 488 days ago that was posted. What would you say a good re-post timeline would be? (of interesting topics that is)

Once a story has had significant attention, about a year.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

It should be pulled out every year so that the new graduates/dropouts/newcomers-to-the-workforce can be enlightened as to what they're getting themselves into ..

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7455757

There's a flipside to this: middle-aged-to-old people aren't choosing to participate in the silicon valley startup culture. As superuser2 noted, a 22-year-old can subsist on ramen while living in a car, while a 45-year-old can't ask his wife and children to do that. But it runs deeper than that: just because a 22-year-old can subsist on ramen while living in a car doesn't mean it's a rational choice.

Most startups these days are producing glorified ad servers that don't actually solve any problems or provide any value. The tech bubble is such that anyone with a young face, a Macbook Pro, and a dumb idea can get funded, but that won't last. As such, working 60 hour weeks for stock that will be worthless in a decade is a bad idea for anyone, regardless of age. Software devs in their 40s have the self-respect and experience that they won't take that kind of deal.

There are some startups which have reasonable business models, but I suspect that time will show that part of those reasonable business models is recognizing the value of experience. In the long run 45-year-old programmer with 25 years of experience working 40 hours a week is easily worth two 22-year-old programmers with 2 years of experience working 60 hours a week. There are certainly young prodigies and ideas which hit the zeitgeist so well that the execution of the idea barely matters, but these are outliers, not the norm.

A lot of you reading this are probably in your 20s, thinking that age 40 is impossibly far off. Secretly (whether you would say it out loud or not), you may be thinking that you will be rich at that point, possibly the VC that gets to judge and fund the 20 and 30-something entrepreneurs of the future.

The likelihood of this happening is extraordinarily low. The question you should ask yourself is, what kind of tech industry do I want to be a part of in 20 years? Are young people really smarter, or just more manipulable to the (likely non-technical) MBAs looking for lots of cheap labor and ebullient attitudes?

A few things about this:

1) This is why it's important to try to make your fortune early. Most won't, but try anyway.

2) Never stop learning. Everyone has to become lifelong learners in this new hyper-competitive economy. Even moreso for those with traditional "disadvantages" like being considered too old. Keep up with trends, keep reading those whitepapers, go back and review the basics every so often (this is a good idea anyway, IMO), learn at least the basics of the new whiz-bang thing that comes out (even if it's just the "hello world" equivalent), and generally keep yourself "interview ready."

3) Physical appearance matters. They may not be able to ask your age, but they can look at you, and they'll form an opinion whether it's conscious or subconscious. Though many find it distasteful, it is the reality. That means consider carefully whether smoking/alcohol/other intoxicants that affect your physical appearance are worth it. It also behooves you to keep a regular exercise schedule. Cosmetic surgery is also an option; there are many tells for age you can fix: eyelid and eyebrow droop, under-eye and various other facial lines, hanging chin. Hair dye and grafts are also worth considering, as a receded hairline and whites/grays are obvious tells.

4) It probably goes without saying to keep up your professional network.

5) Another distasteful one, but perhaps worth thinking about: if you're someone who is in the age bracket that is often considered "very likely to have a family", but you don't (especially if you don't ever plan to), state it. Signaling that you don't have large, difficult-to-discharge obligations could give you the edge you need. You may get mentally re-bracketed. I haven't tried this one, since I'm not yet in the bracket nor do I appear to be, but I would probably do so if I was.

6) Companies that are truly hard up for good people (and not just the "we can't hire (at the wage we wish to pay)" companies) will just have to be more flexible. Maybe they already are.

Overall, your message seems to be that we shouldn't try to do anything about ageism. Try to be immune to it (1), or try to fake being young/childless (3 and 5), or get what you can despite it (6). Just as a thought experiment, consider how that would sound if we were talking about race, gender, or sexual orientation. Then (3) is like saying that people who aren't straight and white and male should try to minimize their differences from that "ideal", and (6) sounds like only companies that can't hire enough SWMs need to consider anyone else. Would you also promote skin-lightening or breast-reduction surgery to because they eliminate "obvious tells"?

Age should not be the one bias that's still acceptable, and that we can't talk about fixing. Advice about how to live in an ageist world might be pragmatic, but telling people to accommodate it at all costs is practically the same as condoning it.

I don't think a list of practical tips for dealing with the reality is condoning anything, anymore than telling people to wear a bulletproof vest is condoning getting shot. I've posted stories about ageism previously. I don't think you'll find me 'condoning' it anytime soon. Example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/your-money/unemployed-and-...

I am realistic about it, though. I think it's something that we're going to have a very, very hard time dealing with. More obvious ones - like the ones you've listed - have been hard enough so far, and the struggles around them continue daily. Age? Yeah, that's going to be seriously challenging to combat. I'm all for trying to fight it, I just don't see the likelihood of good results anytime soon.

When you propose drastic measures like surgery, I think it crosses that line. If you don't believe me, why don't you either answer my question or explain why the analogy to sex/race/gender discrimination doesn't apply? Why would you not propose cosmetic surgery to cope with the "manifest reality" of being black or female? (Besides fear of the repercussions if you did, that is.) Why is one "realistic" when the other is clearly out of bounds?

Any complete list of suggestions would include at least a few items aimed at challenging the bias. It doesn't have to be "systemic change"; it could just be calling out the behavior in a specific environment or context. Maybe that would work and maybe it wouldn't, but the same could be said of your "just fit in" suggestions. When the list is so one-sided, it implies that acceptance is the only logical course. That's wrong. It's not enough to admit that ageism exists (and then only when challenged). If you don't acknowledge the need for change then you're part of the problem.

P.S. Since you keep re-editing what I'm responding to instead of adding new responses, putting it off isn't so great either. Yeah, sure, we'll start thinking about justice some day. We have more important things to worry about this week, right?

Unlike those other areas, which I think can be combatted through cultural change and pressure, ageism is one that I think will remain a great deal more stubborn and resistant to change, and I don't feel that I have anything really useful to suggest other than "be aware of it and try not to be ageist." I could certainly be wrong, and I hope am. I just don't feel particularly hopeful about it. There's a comparable bias I don't think societies will have much luck with, either: "ugliness bias":

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240529702036875045766553...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8765360/Does-be...

I just don't see good ways of fixing that. (There's also "height bias", but I actually think that one might be fixable culturally.)

Edit: I know it seems defeatist, and maybe it is, but it's an area I just don't feel hopeful about.

Not that this article is necessarily about entrepreneurism, but just general "ageism" in SV. I see this as an opportunity rather than a problem. Leaves a lot of room for older entrepreneurs without anyone backing their idea (or anyone willing to take them in as an employee). Sure it will require ambition beyond even a typical entrepreneur, but I have a hunch that those people (the ones who could not find a place in an established company because of his/her age) will be the ones who receive pitches in SV in the not-too-distant future.

Yes, I've been watching for someone to start The Graybeard Fund.

Then entrepreneurship culture needs to change, a lot. A 22-year-old can subsist on Ramen while living in a car. A 45-year-old can't ask his wife and children to do that.

Startups staffed/founded by middle-aged people are going to have to pay drastically better wages, and investors are going to have to be okay with that.

Personally, having worked at startups my whole career, I would in a heartbeat hire a single highly qualified veteran at a market salary than 5 people fresh out of college.

The trick, though, is to get a veteran who is not jaded. Someone who believes in the vision and has enough skin in the game to make them want to fight for the project.

A 45 year old who had been working in a professional capacity ought to have enough savings that he need not live off ramen if he chooses to make a minimal income for a few years.

Well, technically, but when the startup fails he may be unable to retire or send his kids to college (or both). Risk appetites change. Someone that age should have savings, but not necessarily savings they can afford to lose.

The assumption that a 45 year old must have a wife and children, and must require a higher wage is itself ageist.

I don't think anyone assumes that of all 45 year olds.

But the proportion of 45 year olds with dependent families versus the proportion of 22 year old with dependent families is hugely imbalanced.

We might find some hugely imbalanced results from that.

In fact I think this whole story indirectly shows a deep flaw in the structure of markets.

We all realize middle aged people tend to have families and more financial responsibilities as they get older. But it's these years IMO where a person is truly most capable to make a dent in the world.

So we practically lose an entire demographic (the most capable demographic) almost when it comes to disruption. All you get are the people who have risen to the top (VCs) and the people who are just entering at the bottom (just out of school) who participate in this endeavor.

Granted that's making several assumptions, but in general I think one could make a case that this is a flaw that we can't integrate this demographic into more disruptive ventures.

Being an employee is a super tough way to get financial security. Really, the theme in the US today is to be a business owner, in part or in whole.

On the Internet, no one knows if you are a dog, a man, or an old dog or man. So, if you have a business that is in tech, say, a Web site or an app, the users/customers need not know anything about the owner's age.

I'm 38. The only issue I have with older engineers is they sometimes get stuck in a rut and don't want to learn new things as much. But, it's definitely not all of them, but in my experience it's more common among people over the age of 35 or so.

That's a terrible Faustian Bargain. The choice between someone who doesn't want to learn new things and someone for whom everything is new.

Not that it takes away from the point but this passage:

  Unfortunately, the problems the average 22-year-old male programmer has experienced
  are all about being an affluent single guy in Northern California.
  That’s how we’ve ended up with so many games (Angry Birds, Flappy Bird,
  Crappy Bird) and all those apps for what one start-up founder described
  to me as cooler ways to hang out with friends on a Saturday night.

Strikes me as odd as neither Angry Birds nor Flappy Bird were make by people in California and I doubt either games' core audience is 22 year old technologists.

If they bent over backwards for older people it wouldnt be ageism. It would be about respecting "experience" and the old boys club. Sure its not ok to be rude, but this is also a product of showing that things have changed.

That's a big "if" there. Nobody's suggesting that anyone bend over backwards for older people, only that they stop bending over forwards for younger ones.

Yep, its brutal. No matter how hard you try, you can't convince anybody that 95 year olds are just as creative and productive as 25 year olds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com