Hacker News Reader

Comment by dunpeal | Hacker News Reader

> Do they not know? Do they think we're lying? Or would they just rather complain than actually solve the problem?

Companies typically complain about "lack of talent" so the government will let them import more low-paid developers from abroad.

There is ample proof that the tech industry fails to tap into many existing talent pools.

For example, SV couldn't afford to be openly ageist if talent shortage was really its top concern.

You are right that if companies were really so desperate for talent, you'd see a lot more willingness to compensate developers in various ways.

View on HN

And software isn't the first industry, this same process happened to biotech "successfully" driving down wages to an absurd degree.

Much of agism is actuulay moeny related too.

While allot comes from the belief that "young people are just smarter" (as opposed to whites or men as was the "common sense" in the past).

Much of the discrimination is because it is assumed that after a few years, technologists actually know how much they're worth while the fresh college graduate etc is awestruck by a wage that is barely over bay-area poverty line: There's an assumption you can't get a bargain hiring the over 35 set.

It's not ageism to hire someone asking for less money over someone asking for more money.

> technologists actually know how much they're worth

If they can't find a job because they want more money than the market is willing to give them then they clearly don't know how much they're worth.

>If they can't find a job because they want more money than the market is willing to give them then they clearly don't know how much they're worth.

I do not claim they ask for more, I claim they are perceived as being savvy: They are perceived as costing too much whatever the price.

But either way, if there's a shortage of technologists it's because the market isn't paying enough not that the candidate is asking to much.

> I claim they are perceived as being savvy

That would be my assumption as well. Young kids are willing to work hard and smart while all the credits from their work go to whoever hired them. They still believe that just by being (technically) good they can thrive and become successful. Whereas their opponents, not other developers but mid-level management are not trying to be "good" they are trying to profit from others' work.

An older more experienced person realizes that much of the value of the software is because of what they put into it. They can also easily explain why that is to the senior management and therefore they are a threat to the mid-level management who are getting older themselves and don't want to fall off the shelf.

It's a game, people hiring developers are not looking for smart developers, they are looking for developers they can profit from and who they don't perceive as a threat to themselves.

A good analogy here is the "pilot shortage" US airlines have been complaining about for the past few years.

The truth is that there's no shortage of competent people who'd like to be airline pilots. There's arguably not even a shortage of competent people who already possess the training and credentials. There is a shortage of people who are willing to put their expensive training to use at the near-starvation wages offered for entry-level positions with US airlines. So people either don't bother learning to fly, or if they do, they go sign with Asian or middle-eastern airlines, which have been expanding and are willing to pay good salaries for US-trained pilots.

Would you argue that pilots who demand more money than a US airline is willing to pay "don't understand how much they're worth"?

Ageism in tech is just ageism.

It's not (fundamentally) about money and not (fundamentally) about skillset.

It's about tossing out any resume of a 40+ year old because tech is "a young man's game".

Why is it "a young man's game"? Because that's the current perception and that's it.

Ageism is exaggerated outside of the startup SV culture. I’m in my mid 40s and have never had a problem finding a job. My former manager is 60 and he self demoted to being a developer after putting his kids through college. Every developer I know over 40 is able to get a job if they kept thier skills current.

I would not want to be over 40 and interviewing for a almost any startup, anywhere in the US.

More broadly, I would not want to be the over-40 guy trying to interview for any team where hardly anyone is even close to 30.

Such teams are quite common, especially in startups everywhere, and not just in SV, unfortunately.

I'm not affected by ageism myself (yet), but even if it was only in SV, which is the biggest tech hub in the US, then it would be a huge problem.

But ageism is rampant outside of SV as well.

Now that I'm out of my 20s I wouldn't want to be interviewing at almost any startup, anywhere in the world.

I'm now wiser. Startup culture is toxic and I prefer to stay away ...

There was an article recently on HN that the average age of an entrepreneur is somewhere in thier 40s. But, I’ve worked at startups since I was 35+. Many startup jobs outside of SV are just like any other corporate environment. It’s just the HN/SV bubble that makes people think that all developers are under 30.

More broadly, I would not want to be the over-40 guy trying to interview for any team where hardly anyone is even close to 30.

After staying at one company way too long and becoming an “expert beginner” in my mid 30s, I had to basically start over and work my way back up to an architect level position. By “Architect level” I mean either officially by title or by responsibility and respect over the last 10 years. I had no problem getting development jobs. The issue I found isn’t ageism with people over 40, it is that they haven’t kept their skills current, are stuck in thier ways, and/or don’t respect thier younger team leads.

I'm not affected by ageism myself (yet), but even if it was only in SV, which is the biggest tech hub in the US, then it would be a huge problem. But ageism is rampant outside of SV as well.

Despite the common perception on HN, there are plenty of places outside of SV where a software developer can make a high enough salary to live an upper middle class lifestyle in a lower cost of living part of the country. $135K-160K goes a long way in most of the country and there are literally millions of jobs out there for software developers at profitable companies not looking to be part of the “bro culture”.

It's about tossing out any resume of a 40+ year old because tech is "a young man's game"

People become managers, generally, because they want to be managers. Why do they want to be managers? Well some are just assholes who like to boss people around but for most it's because their definition of career success is "becoming a manager".

Those people look at people who have similar years of experience but aren't managers as "losers", and don't care about or don't understand the reasons, i.e. many people actually prefer to remain ICs.

> technologists actually know how much they're worth while the fresh college graduate etc is awestruck by a wage that is barely over bay-area poverty line

I think this was a key part of the racket:

Faced with the need for engineers, employers offered very high entry-level wages for engineering positions. For most of the past 20 years, entry-level SWE pay was among the best you could hope for as a fresh graduate.

However, once an engineer got into "the system", they became "captive audience", so wages could be frozen. Imagine a typical 35 year old engineer with 13 years of full-time programming experience. What's he going to do about his frozen wage? Go to medical school and become a physician instead?

So engineers started at or close to $100k, but then got stuck in the narrow $100-150k band for the rest of their career.

Like most unfair practices, this one worked... for a short time. Longer term, it was destructive and self-defeating: the smartest, most far-thinking college students did their research, saw that the entry level wages were appealing, but then they become stagnant. It's a bait-and-switch. Looks good from the outside, but after a few years, you start lagging far behind your peers who went to finance, medicine, business, etc.

So they went into those fields instead.

These are exactly the type of smart, capable, senior software engineer that all these clever employers wish they had right now.

Congrats, you played yourselves.

Not every company needs smart capable senior engineers. If you are just doing yet another SAAS CRUD app, you may not need anymore than an architect and some mid level developers. Full stack developers are becoming a commodity.

Most of the world’s developers aren’t doing anything that complicated. Yes I am a developer, and I command a slight market premium because of my architecture experience, but I am not the force multiplier that I was as a dev lead previously. I self demoted for a lot of reasons (for the same pay) but I know that my work isn’t as impactful.

> Not every company needs smart capable senior engineers. If you are just doing yet another SAAS CRUD app, you may not need anymore than an architect and some mid level developers. Full stack developers are becoming a commodity.

So you recognize even a single simple project like a single SAAS CRUD app requires at least one smart, capable, senior engineer (your architect).

Also, I'd say you're overestimating my definition of "senior engineers". A senior engineer is someone who actually completed a project or two. Someone you can entrust with big chunks of development work and be reasonably sure they won't mess it up.

Your "mid level developers" are likely senior by this standard, especially since the alternative, "a junior", typically means someone fresh out of college (or boot camp) with about 0 real world experience.

A senior engineer is someone who actually completed a project or two. Someone you can entrust with big chunks of development work and be reasonably sure they won't mess it up.

In that case would I have been considered a “senior developer” straight out of college since I was entrusted to create a fairly large system by myself in the mid 90s? I had spent close to 10 years by then as a hobbyist.

If a person who has just completed a project or two and doesn’t know anything about designing large, scalable, maintainable, systems and doesn’t know anything about infrastructure is a “senior developer”, we really either have a horrible level of title inflation in the industry or we just call everyone senior but some are just more senior than others.

I’ve been a software developer officially for over 20 years, but I know I really only have the last 10 years of experience and the first 10 or so were only worth about 2.

That being said, I agree that any real experience as an individual contributor over 10 years, isn’t worth much for most corporations. On one hand, your salary does peak, but on the other hand, so does your value to the company. As an individual contributor, you only contribute X number of hours worth of semi-commoditized value to the company. As a team lead or technical manager, your knowledge can easily be multiplied across the organization.

>but then got stuck in the narrow $100-150k

Is it really stuck if you're making more than 70% of America? I'm sorry you can't afford a summer house in the Keys, but you have to accept different careers have maximum limits, and ours tops out a bit above rocket scientist.

Often the best batches of resumes come from international staffing companies, they are often faster and more efficient at putting butts in seats than the smaller staffing companies that focus on local talent s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com