And for the record, I'm 55, work in tech, and yes, ageism is a problem, but this book doesn't seem like its going to help.
This idea is alive and well in Canada (a more conservative culture generally); their tech scene hasn't exactly exploded as a result.
This is a pet peeve of mine, and exactly the same ageism the author is complaining about. All of these things mean that you're not getting the best people for the job, both ways.
And then the environment and expense of Vancouver makes most gtfo to Toronto or SF (like they wanted to in the first place).
Even now I'd rather go to Vancouver than SF or Toronto. I went to Seattle instead of Vancouver because my job offer was for Seattle.
I bet after that MS share holders though damn we should have hired Mulally.
Some on at his level should not make that sort of mistake evver.
For reference - Netflix said it best in that masterpiece of an HR document - a pay rise should never come up as a topic, because you should already be paying your people close to the top of what the market thinks they are worth .
I'm not complaining about genuine experience/wisdom/etc. I just think the correlation with age is a lot weaker than prevailing wisdom in the great white north, where age is almost seen as a requirement.
That is far down the list of reasons why Canada's tech scene is weak.
More conservative generally?
The result is that assistance offered to start-ups (via accelerators, etc.) is way too often in the form of finding "experienced" entrepreneurs to "guide" the start-ups, instead of actually enabling the young founders. The experience of a former low-level exec from Nortel, RIM, IBM or Microsoft Canada is generally not relevant to a start-up.
You may disagree, but I feel I spent enough years grinding it out in Canada to justify an opinion.
Well, there is a thing as experience and immaturity.
And someone looking "just out of high school", or an executive being "like an intern" could be legitimate concerns -- if he doesn't say those things as his sole arguments, but proceeds to describe how (in his opinion) these people fared badly due to their inexperience.
When people don't have any actual evidence to support their claims, they use bullshit phrases designed to push emotion over facts.
It can also mean that he looked AND acted inexperienced, immature, bro-ish, etc.
Often I'll use emotions over facts even when I have facts. My own experience has been that discussing with other humans goes easier when you include emotional arguments. While a mix of both works best, if you have to give a very simplified argument and cannot include both factual and emotional argument, the emotional argument will tend to go better.
I fully agree with your claim that those without factual argument will use emotional argument, but the use of an emotional argument does not guarantee they are lacking a factual argument.
For example, if I describe someone as an intern due to their lack of maturity, I may have numerous stories to tell about their lack of maturity, but as I only have one line to describe them in, I stick with describing them as an intern.
Besides "he looked just out of high school" can be corroborative evidence, as it's something that can statistically explain their immature behavior/inexperience etc.
In other words, it's not like everybody who is "just out of high school" is immature/inexperienced etc, but if we want to predict or explain such behavior, it's a statistically very good tool.
But when someone calls someone a "bitch" it doesn't make much sense to assume they meant that.
It's 99.99999% more likely that he said those things pointing out their age.