Ask HN: Is it just me or is the IT field becoming discriminatory?

You seem to be approaching this from the wrong direction.

If you're really suffering from age discrimination, instead of thinking of women and minorities as the reason you're not being hired (do you really think that's the case when there are so few in tech comparatively?!), you should be thinking of them as people who are plausibly in same situation as you: suffering from a form of discrimination.

So:

(A) you should be feeling solidarity with people who have hard time getting hired, not getting upset companies are trying to be more fair in their hiring practices by encouraging broader range of people to apply.

(B) when you encounter companies that encourage women/minorities/etc. to apply, those are probably companies that are trying to hire people on merit, rather than preconceived notions. So those are exactly the places you _want_ to apply!

To be fair to Automattic, that last quoted line is actually referring to a research project - not their hiring practices...

> For our initial research, we’re looking for women and non-binary people.......

But I understand your frustration. I have 20 years experience and I'm currently looking for a job (considering a recent offer, actually). Age discrimination is real IMO but there's little you can do about it (very hard to prove). Move on, find an employer with more realistic hiring practices. You don't want to work for the discriminatory companies anyway.

But the research project exists to inform future changes in their hiring practices.

It's quite likely Automattic already tries to discriminate in hiring because they mention their "strong focus on metrics" along with their amusing puzzlement that merely demanding more women and trans people be hired didn't automatically make it so. They certainly want discriminatory outcomes.

That said I agree with what you write. I'm not sure explicit age discrimination is common though. It may appear to be happening but is often other things, nobody is actually deciding they don't want older people. Age discrimination against young people, that's common (e.g. young people not being allowed to be CEOs, like Larry Page). Not necessarily bad but common. Gender discrimination against men I've seen a bunch of times, and it's explicit. People say "we won't hire men".

Encouraging more applications from women and trans programmers doesn't mean they're turning you down because you are not those things. If they do succeed at widening their pool of applicants, that may mean more competition overall for jobs. Was it to your advantage when the applicant pool was perhaps more limited in some ways? Maybe.

"we realized that the demographics of people we attract to apply are not inline with the demographics of the people we hope to hire"

This is the part that bothers me. They have a predetermined image of who they want to hire, based on nonfunctional qualities, like race and gender. If a company said they had too many minorities working for them and the demographic they really wanted to hire was straight, white males, it seems like people would be up in arms over that. But the inverse seems acceptable.

Maybe, but the historical reality is that in many technical fields, women and minorities have been underrepresented due to deliberately exclusionary policies. There's not really a need to say, hey we want straight white dudes to apply, there's no shortage of such applicants.

Deliberately exclusionary policies? I've been around a long time. I've never known of a policy, at any place I worked, that discriminated based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Disclaimers: I've never been the hiring manager, so I've never read the actual policies. And there may have been discrimination that was not encoded in policies. But I have never, to my knowledge, been anywhere that had a deliberately exclusionary policy.

I feel your pain. I have come up against ageism with the typical brush-off being "over qualified".

I assume that the jobs you are applying for are for "remote" roles. If they are expecting on-site workers then suggesting that you are only willing to do the work remote is likely to be a non-starter.

I fail to understand why you mention having a wife and kids. That is the sort of personal question that in must jurisdictions is no permissible. So why do you even volunteer that information?

As for young devs, working 60+ hours for low salaries -- yes, that is a very common expectation.

HNers can only share their experiences. The only real way to get answers is to actually ask the interviewers for feedback and ideally more information up front. E.g. ask how, where and when the work needs to be done; what hours are expected; what salaries range they are considering, etc. You could also tweak your CV to appear younger, more independent, less experienced, willing to do on-site work and see what aspects give you better results. Unfortunately, remote work is not always a viable option for many potential employers, especially in the enterprise area.

Thanks for the suggestions. I normally wouldn't talk about my personal life, but I currently have a good job and when they ask why I'm looking for a new/remote role, I tell the truth: my wife and I want to move to a small town in a remote area to be closer to family and there aren't any IT opportunities there.

Still-truthful possible answers that say the same thing without raising flags: "Cost of living where I am as increased quite rapidly, so I'm looking to relocate to a more affordable area."

"I'd like to live closer to family, and my current work situation makes that impossible."

"I'd like to move back to my hometown, but there aren't a lot of on-site opportunities there, so I'm hoping to get a remote position so that I can move back."

You get the idea. You can be vague and still truthful, so that you stay under the radar.

On a side note, it's very odd that having a wife and kids is something you now have to consider "hiding". Interesting times.

Fifteen or so years ago, it was recommended that I remove two items from my CV, my age and my marital status. It was suggested to me that both of those items would, in quite a few circumstances, put me on the automatic reject list, irrespective of what I had achieved in the past.

>When I mention that I have a wife and kids, I don't know if that's good or bad in the company's eyes.

You have two options: either don't mention the wife and kids and take the chance of getting a job that doesn't respect what you want from your work/life balance because they didn't know, or mention you have a wife/kids and not get hired for a job you would have hated anyway.

I don't want to speak on your behalf, but I would rather get passed over for a job that was a bad fit than take a job that's going to have a negative impact on my family life.

Why are you mentioning wife and kids? Why would that ever come up in a professional interview?

Also, what does remote IT work mean? Are you using IT as it's used in the midwest to encapsulate software? On the west coast, IT typically refers to networking and helpdesk type stuff. I don't see how it's even possible to do that fully remote.

EDIT: Also, I recommend treating the blog you linked the same as Infowars. The owner is an Alex Jones-level conspiracy theorist, and her blog reflects that. She doesn't even try to hide her obvious contempt for men.

I think many jobs what they want is somebody cheap and that will take any orders. Experience or age isn't factored in.

Those jobs you will want to avoid in any case.

Do you mean job positions you think you are qualified for? You need to convince the employer that you are likely to perform well.

Are you serious?