Serious question: are you trolling? I hire programmers for a startup. When I do, we do not care at all how old you are. We care about attitude, skills, and aptitude.
When I hired programmers for a startup, I'm pretty sure that I had a unconscious bias towards young candidates, which was at the time justified by the blanket word "attitude" (or "cultural fit").
Now, I'm not claiming that you (or anyone specifically) have the same bias, but I'm pretty sure that I wasn't the only one. You may be a nice exception :)
I really wish people wouldn't hide behind cultural fit as justification. A number doesn't reveal attitude. I'm past 50, but I haven't yet started to aspire to being being middle aged, and have no slippers, cardigans or golf clubs. If given a choice I'll take many a young startup or company over a similar sized company of people my age.
When I look at people my age, I'd guess less than a third have settled into some form of middle age, and those are the friends I've tended to lose touch with. Of the rest, well we probably all-night party a little less, have a few extra commitments, and the kids are a bit older. We all seem to get on with people in their 20s and 30s far easier than my parent's generation did.
If attitude is a euphemism for "won't work extra hours and weekends almost constantly", then yeah. Though I gained that attitude in my 20s six months into my second or third job.
Modern 50 year olds have a different set of preferences than their parents. Most do not wear the clothing and hairstyles of modern 20 year olds.
Will Smith on some interview for Suicide Squad talked about tattoos. All of the younger cast got tattoos. He, as a 40+ year old father of three, didn't feel comfortable doing that. I didn't find that specific interview, but it's also mentioned at https://youtu.be/u3MgN0NimjY?t=220 .
I can imagine that the 25 years olds of a modern startup might get a tattoo together. Would you join them?
When I was in my 20s I would try out all sort of new technologies, for fun. Now I rarely do that, because I think most of it is churn, redoing well-known concepts but with a different flavor, and I think I understand the underlying concepts well enough. But the 25 year old me might look at my lack of experimentation and judge that I'm set in my ways.
I can easily believe that a modern startup with 20 somethings might think the same thing about me now, and prefer to hire the 25 year old me than the 45 year old me because of it. At the very least, I'm more likely now to speak up and criticize a technology choice, based on experience. That can easily be interpreted as being a killjoy.
I know, because it's happened to me.
For parent's generation it seemed to be very much something they took on. Or there was an expectation to progress through phases of life/clothes/attitudes. As I've got older it's apparent just how much wider the gap was compared to us and the next generation. To look at my parents I see a different world, with the kids it's very much the same world we just disagree on some details.
Tattoo? Probably not - but for the same reason I didn't in my 20s either. I change mind on what I'd like too often to commit to skin!
I agree on tinkering, the enthusiasm has faded a fair bit. I can't remember the last time something seemed genuinely new rather than yet another variation on a theme. Yes I can see how pointing out the latest framework is a silly idea might get interpreted as killjoy! It does get too easy to see the negative sometimes. On IoT and security, to name but two, a little less blind optimism and a bit more criticism wouldn't be a bad thing!
I've long known I think a little different. I prefer a healthy diversity and range of perspectives to homogeneity. If I were recruiting at a company of mostly 50 something males I'd be hoping to bring in some women and younger people. By the same token most startups of 20 somethings could benefit from the odd wise uncle or aunt even if they don't have reaction times to win games sessions!
First off, what you describe fits neither my father nor my grandfathers. As far as I know, none ever played even a round of golf, much less pursued it. Golf has a reputation of being a rich (upper middle class or higher), white, suburban sport, for people with plenty of leisure time to get in a full 18 holes. The working class and lower middle class sport was bowling.
That makes me think it's more likely associated with social class dynamics of the mid-20th century than waiting until one turns 50-something to take on a certain role. That is, did your father at age 20 decide that at age 50 he would get a cardigan and slippers? Or was it an image that was was marketed to members of the professional class, which he adopted?
30 years previous, when he was 20, were the 50 years olds also doing the cardigan, slipper and golf thing? Because I don't think that was the case. I don't think he took on the role that was established for 50 years, but rather helped establish the culturally correct role for people of his social class.
I agree with the "different world". While many like to hype the speed of change in the modern world, I am of the minority view that the world has changed less, in the social sense, in the last 40 years than the previous 40 years. Earlier this year I was reading some letters written in the late 1940s, where the family was deciding to buy a fridge. The mid-20th century brought so many changes that Toffler's 'Future Shock' became an international bestseller.
We certainly weren't rich, going on the house and lifestyle, though with a car not poor either. That highlights another difference, he'd never talk about work much and money not at all. With our kids we were far more open about work, less so about money - they don't need to share mortgage worries.
Of the rest I think you're entirely right, especially as he grew up in the 30s. The post war world would soon be unrecognisable. From the 30s through to the typical home of 1970, the changes were dramatic and fundamental moving from poverty to consumer society with healthcare.
[EDIT] Relevant story from HN last year: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/64-year-old-engin...
Edit: I certainly understand that this type of discrimination occurs... I just don't think that age is typically an active consideration for companies with mature/experienced management. We all know that "not a good culture fit" can be code for things both fair and unfair.
That's spot on, now you have to wonder how many companies have such management and how many - unfortunately - do not.
Attitude and aptitude, sure.
Affirmative action isn't the solution either, because that's just introducing more bias into the equation. More discrimination cannot beget less discrimination in this case.
I'm guess the grumpy old man not impressed be "new thing x" that's really a reinvention of something we had 20 years ago will probably get filtered out by this step.