How to Start Closing Silicon Valley’s Age Gap
medium.com
medium.com
1. Older candidates are more expensive. Tech isn't that hard to learn. You can get pretty good at a particular tech within 2 years of learning it. Why pay an older candidate tons of money, when you can hire a new one that is just as good?
2. Older candidates don't know the latest tech. They spend their evenings with their families / kids whereas young folk are constantly learning the latest stacks at home.
3. Older candidates don't pass the 'beer test' with young co-founders.
1. Candidates that demand compensation for sacrificing their work/life balance are more expensive. Tech isn't that hard to learn. You can get pretty good at a particular tech within 2 years of learning it. Why pay a candidate tons of money for them to give up their work/life balance, when you can hire one that will give it up for little?
2. Candidates that value their non-work time don't know the latest tech. They spend their evenings with their families / kids / friends / hobby whereas those who do are constantly learning the latest stacks at home to benefit their work.
3. Candidates that would rather go do something not work related after work don't pass the 'beer test' with those who's life choices are work-centric.
It depends on what you are doing, tech is hard to learn when its in a difficult discipline that takes time to do well. It also depends if you need a lead, or not. If you need someone to sling javascript, maybe you get away with someone younger.
If you need a lead to help you build a database kernel, or build a globally distributed system that needs strict SLAs and extreme performance, you are probably going to need someone with experience. Putting someone with 2 years of experience into that role is asking for a disaster.
Most startups aren't doing anything super difficult from a technical point of view, and don't necessarily need their systems to last, so hiring younger people, paying them less, giving them equity that isn't worth anything and burning them out is a winning strategy.
Do you feel this is any more justified or fair to individuals than saying:
"Female candidates don't know the latest tech. They spend their evenings with their families / kids whereas men folk are constantly learning the latest stacks at home"
I think both statements are completely unfair to an entire blanket group of people, many of whom don't fit the stereotypical profile.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenkotler/2015/02/14/is-silic...