Age Discrimination at Work
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I've been in this industry for a while. I started out as a system administrator writing a lot of bash and Perl scripts, taking care of mail servers and DNS, and doing a lot of corporate backups. That job is now called "DevOps", and I've made the transition.
I now work in Python 3, Django, Ruby, JavaScript, Kubernetes, and AWS. I haven't been standing still, and I firmly believe the key to avoiding career stagnation is to be constantly learning and educating yourself and never being satisfied with the status quo.
I've been fortunate, as a remote worker, that I haven't really experienced severe negative consequences (at least not yet...knock on wood) from age discrimination. Yet the shadow of ageism is always there, and I hear stories from friends about incredibly insensitive and cringe-worthy age discrimination.
I'm content with my role as a "grey beard" (I'm actually clean-shaven now, but back in the day I had a huge red UNIX hacker beard). But I'm not happy with the way the tech industry treats older workers. I'm supportive of legal protections for older workers in tech. We are not all dinosaurs. Many of us know, for instance, how to sniff out fads from real forward leaps, and we have deep industry experience that can be leveraged by employers open-minded enough to hire us.
I really don't understand why there is a bias against age. Programming, for me, is a daily exercise in epistemic humility, and I can't fathom having the kind of arrogance to discount the experience and wisdom that comes with age.
You are wise beyond your years, young padawan.
I've observed this first-hand while doing interviews. Even in companies that insist there's no bias against age, and even with people who insist they don't have any bias, there is nonetheless a preference for hiring:
* People who don't have a clear understanding of how much their work is worth and therefore have difficulties negotiating a high salary
* People who openly display enthusiasm -- and this is especially true among HR and higher-level managers, who can't really discern technical expertise so they look at things they can assess themselves. Enthusiasm is obviously good to have but it's no substitute for expertise, commitment and discipline, all of which are hard to evaluate if you have little or no technical experience.
* People who have no strong personal commitments and don't mind doing overtime on a short notice
* People who are enthusiastic about new technology, because they enable ambitious team leaders' and managers' experiments and pet projects instead of skeptically cautioning against them.
* People who have no trouble buying into a new company's culture, even when it's of questionable value (i.e. people who can quickly assimilate and integrate in even the most toxic working environments, as opposed to people who can recognize one, understand what kind of damage it does, and quickly go fsck it, this ain't worth it!)
Experienced programmers know their worth and aren't twenty year-olds that you can walk all over if you have a fancy title. So there are a lot of hiring managers who would be okay with hiring a 50-year old candidate, but have difficulty finding a 50-year old candidate that they'd be willing to hire.
I've seen places where availability for sudden overtime was a big deal, even though it was rarely needed. The reasons were completely stupid but it was a big deal and it played a big role in deciding hires. The projects were well-executed and deadlines were rarely missed, but management quirks meant that every team lead and manager was afraid of not being able to cope with crunch.
Also, a lot of these problems aren't "global" -- a company may actually run into all of them, but not everywhere and not with the same people. Companies that do value choosing the right technologies over following trends will nonetheless have one or two people who would like to be more bold. They may generally aim for building stable teams that executes on a plan and delivers things on time, but they nonetheless won't be devoid of newly-hired managers who don't have experience running things like that, or who might be willing to compromise on this side of things for a volatile, but high-potential project. Even toxicity can be surprisingly well isolated.
Another factor is that many large companies have roles and expectations tied to length of experience - so if you have 20 years experience, fine, you're being compared with other candidates with 20 years of experience, and people who have been with the company for 20 years and promoted a few times.
In this situation, it's not the case that a candidate with 5 years experience, and a candidate with 20 years experience that are both qualified for an opening are compared against each other and the more experienced candidate will be preferred.
When comparing candidates with 20 years of experience against each other, there's huge variation. Some have been developing, are well-rounded, and have worked in a variety of interesting roles, others have been doing similar things, piecemeal work, contracting with no overall ownership, and not so much to show for it. It's the difference between 20 years of growth, versus the same year 20 times over.
Related to this is that there are social problems about not getting good enough fast enough. I had a chat at one point with a developer who just hit 40 was struggling to find work and asked for some feedback. I asked him to explain Depth First Search to me and he couldn't do it, he was quite confident he could _implement_ it, but not explain it.
Now, if he were 20 with no yoe, I might chalk that up to inexperience and bank on being able teach him, but at 15 yoe you don't know DFS well enough to explain it the odds of you getting it now are slim.
The inability to answer problems of _at least_ this complexity leads to a social problem in the workplace: the young guys are going to go to this older, experienced employee and ask them to explain something along the same lines of complexity as DFS. In my experience, one of three things will happen:
1. They explain it poorly, the younger employees will believe them, and now I have two employees with a shared misunderstanding 2. They explain it poorly, the younger employees will not believe him, and now they won't respect them 3. They say they don't know how to solve the problem, the younger employees won't respect them
All of these results slowly lead to a dysfunctional team.
As to the rest of those preferences, it actually costs an older worker very little simply to cultivate an enthusiasm for new technologies, or their new companies' pet projects.
Where an inexperienced hire will do anything becuase they think everything will work, and an experienced hire might refuse to do things because they think it won't work, a true wise greybeard realizes most things don't work no matter what, but you might as will get onboard and take the ride. You never know what might end up succeeding.
I cant condense the background that goes into that statement into a single comment. But a few other languages are valuable too and will be for a while.
I'm 48, been programming since I was 8, professionally since I was 16, and I feel the same way.
1) Is regular, ordinary age discrimination. This is why tech companies won't hire people starting second careers into entry level programming roles.
2) The widespread notion that more than about 5 years programming experience is not valuable, maybe even counterproductive. (Firm specific knowledge is a different story, tech companies do value that.) Hence all the "senior" programmers with 3 years experience.
--
The first one is illegal and in my opinion immoral. The second one to my mind an empirical question--it doesn't seem to be true based on my experiences and observations, but I'd be willing to have my mind changed by evidence.
Partially illegal. I'm 39, and it is perfectly legal for companies to tell me they won't hire me because I'm too old. Next year it becomes illegal for them to do so.
I wonder if its a regional thing? Areas with high demand for coders can't afford to throw out good candidates because they have grey hair?
Then they asked me how old I was. Their response to my age was, "Oh... maybe it's a little late then. You're not too old, but... kind of cutting it close by just a bit."
I was 26.
...I think you can figure out your chances, if you don't include one.
EDIT: I'm saying this to show how the German (who are European) employers will try to circumvent such age discriminating laws. You get it taught in school, in vocational training, at jobless centers, self-help books and the Internet, that the picture must be of "high-quality", in a sense already arguing past the necessity of why they'd even require one in the first place. I personally do not agree with this practice, though it seems, that more and more employees are becoming aware of this and employers are starting to respect that too.
Better to specify in your job ad that you won't accept CV's with pics.
I wouldn't put a picture, but when I had to write some CVs here, I caved in and put a photo. I used to think it was a fault of mine to be so far off the norm, and I tried really hard to fit in. It just didn't work out for me. Today, I think I know that this is what can make me valuable.
EDIT: ...but it is kind of a play of statistics vs. faith, and I think that one shouldn't fault someone, if they can't pull the faith together for it. A comment on my parent comment tells about someone applying in the US with a comical picture. That person was able to afford applying in such a way, but when you really need a job, because money or family, would you really take that risk/leap of faith? EDIT2: ...or that could also be signalling, that someone is high-risk taker, which could also be an attribute an employer is looking for.
> There are a few must-have personal details every Lebenslauf should include which you might not have on your original CV: a photo, your marital status and place of birth.
Why the hell do I care what you look like?
I don't have one on mine because I'm from the UK and it just feels weird.
Nowadays they can just look on LinkedIn or Facebook or whatever anyway so it feels kind of pointless.
Here in the states, it's my understanding that the picture is for identifying your skin color, and is frowned upon for that reason.
Outside the US I have no knowledge of at what level those protections may/may not be enforced (but hopefully somewhere).
After my experience here, a low average age for an engineering team is a red flag. You're better off for not having been offered or taking that job.
More generally, discrimination in employment is legal by default. It becomes illegal only when a specific law gives protection for a specific characteristic. The laws are much narrower than many people think. For example, there are no laws disallowing discrimination for or against smokers, or Yankee fans, or D&D players.
As a software developer for as long as I can remember, I'm actually at the top of my game now in my 40s - I can software engineer (plan) off the top of my head, and my tenacity is balanced with a sense of direction I never had as a younger developer. I spend half the time developing and produce 10 times the results (there's still crunch time every so often though).
The trick is to keep your mind active - I have a job that allows me to do a lot of side development projects outside of working hours, and I always take on a new project at least once a year that is out of my comfort zone (if it looks impossible, it's perfect).
On the other hand, when people who are already in their 50s post about this topic, they are saying things like, "My phone interview went really great and they were impressed by my skills, but when I went in their attitude changed the second they saw how old I am."
TLDR; I believe a lot of people mistake price discrimination as age discrimination.
Long version: Let's say you need some code monkey to slap together go or rust services. Well, sure, you get a lot of people applying with 25 years experience, you also get a lot of people applying with 5 years experience.
Now here's the rub, it's highly unlikely that anyone's been coding go or rust services for 20 years in any case. (To be honest, it's even unlikely that anyone's been coding go or rust services for 5.) So any of those applicants, as long as their references check out, will do.
Which salary do I want to pay?
If I have a low level, quasi hardware layer service that I need coded in C or C++? Fine, yes, experience matters. It matters a lot in those instances, and I'd be foolish to hire some kid to do that. But there is less and less of that kind of work. (Flip side being that such work is more and more critical.) The dirty secret of the tech industry however, is that most work is just CRUD equivalent stuff that could be satisfactorily accomplished by any warm bodied techie. So it just makes no sense to pay more for those warm bodies.
I always specified entry level, intermediate, etc, but as times get harder, what you start to realize out here in flyover country is that everyone is applying for all positions. They don't really care about the title or labels. (At least, I suspect it's because times are getting harder? I don't know of any other reason highly experienced people would be applying for some of these kinds of positions.)
It always sticks out as an, "Oh REALLY?" But without talking to the candidate you never know if it reflects poorly on their knowledge of their own limitations, or is just a sign they happened to work for companies with title inflation. I've seen both.
3 years after that, I went to work for a company that had the same thing happen and now I'm a 'Technical Lead / Software Architect'. I didn't choose the title life, the title life chose the shitty companies I worked for :(
This is a common misunderstanding: yes, Rust is new but prior experience with everything else is not capped at 5 years and it matters a lot. Over my career, I’ve had to fix or replace a number of those “any warm bodied techie” apps where they had incorrect results, security issues, unusable performance, etc. because the developers had been marginally proficient in a popular tool but lacking more general skills and, most importantly, the ability to recognize that they were out of their league.
Our job was his first interview in a year.
> ...the dirty secret of the tech industry however, is that most work is just CRUD equivalent stuff
I see this a lot on HN, the idea that "CRUD" applications are trivial, but it's a myth. It simply is not true.
I think folks are just extrapolating from "Pet-shop" or "Northwind" examples that they've seen in tutorials/docs and assume that that is what, say, enterprise developers actually do at the same level of complexity. It's not and it has never been the case.
When I was a team lead, I wouldn’t overpay for a crud developer.
I call myself an “enterprise developer/architect” on HN for context - meaning I don’t work for the cool hip startups but let’s call a spade a spade, I’ve spent the last 10 years working on yet another software as a service crud app or bespoke internal apps. Yeah I spend some time in meetings, dealing with “cloud native” infrastructure and I can hold my own up and down the stack.
Nah, it's true. For the average small to medium size company, CRUD apps are mostly "plug library A into framework B, with a dash of glue logic" and you're done. The most difficult part is the yak-shaving needed to get things to work together.
Things like embedded systems or scaling to FAANG levels are much more difficult.
You know, that could be. Dunno why you got the downvote so here's an up.
Offshoring of manufacture probably has something to do with the dearth of work. Development was bound to follow mass production.
Given your struggles to get a job and your very valuable experience, what's holding you back from going as a contractor / setting up your own shop?
Can't afford to live in the US anymore but Mexico is working out pretty well.
Heck, to the right client, that one i860 or C80 programmer might be worth gold. Either that, or just do a highly competent job at embedded programming generally.
To be clear, I've certainly met people in their 20s that have senior-level ability, but they are by far the exception.
In fact, the 6-8 years of experience you quote is far higher than I would have guessed if you asked me when the average company (incorrectly) starts handing out "senior" titles.
Jobs like presales engineers have higher salaries than developers, require 15+ years experience (dev preferred) and excellent soft skills.
Move to a market where your skills are in high demand and focus on middle/business and back end development. Or better yet, embedded systems development.
I've been at this for 25 years and IMO, the further down the call stack you go the more your cumulative years of experience are an asset.
This doesn't mean you can stop learning new tech, it just means the trends in those lower layers seem to be more sustained and of a longer duration.
Being somewhat older than you, but bored, I think about taking up the oar again. My problem doubles down on yours in that my background is all in products with an expensive hardware component or workstation software, neither appears to be a growth industry.
Aside from the inevitable well-meaning advice to become some sort of 'project manager', etc. I wonder if it makes any sense to hit the .gov job markets at all.
Has anyone done that at an advanced age?
Joining a bootcamp makes it look like you are new to the field and will settle for an entry-level salary. This is a very extreme solution, but might help you solve this problem for several years.
I feel bad for saying this, but my advice is to dye your hair, join a gym and take some years of your Facebook profile.
Try to save some money to buy a car to do Uber, start a small IT consulting firm or get a job teaching. Most people will advice mild patches but they dont know what it's like to run out of money. I feel your pain.
You think people aren't racially discriminating when they hire people!? Seems to me they absolutely are, which is why I don't think "we can do" much about age discrimination either.
That isn't what the GP said. The GP pointed out that it is possible to do something about discrimination if we make a concerted effort. Racial discrimination has not been eliminated but has been significantly reduced.
Maybe I'm wrong. But if you ever come to Auckland, NZ I could show you a lot of suspicious coincidences.
And that's not "all you can do". Societal attitudes regarding race have shifted dramatically over the past few decades.
We also banned discriminating against older people in the 60s, so it's not clear where to go from here.
I am under 30 by the way, but I am afraid of some grotesque Logan's run scenario where I will lose control over my life just because of age.
An employee is a seller of labor, and an employer is a buyer. To make the sale, the job seeker must demonstrate the strongest possible value. A lot of outside obligations or time otherwise required to be away from work, all else being equal, makes competitors look relatively more attractive.
Put yourself in the employer’s shoes. Say your toilet is backed up. I’ll assume you’re a homeowner responsible for getting it fixed and not a renter. The first thing you’d likely do is ask your friends to recommend a good plumber. Then you’ll start making phone calls. You probably don’t want someone still in trade school. The best plumber in town may be very expensive or unavailable for a couple of weeks. You have an urgent problem! You talk to another plumber with a reasonable rate but may have to pop in and out of the job on short notice. You need your toilet unstopped today, which means good rate, good reputation, can get there today, and who will stay until the job is done.
But having felt the brunt of age discrimination when I was young and now older, I kinda angst. Kinda feel like generation discriminated sometimes having caught it at both ends.
As a millennial (albeit a slightly older one) this is the reason I tend to not worry about this. We’ll be the dominant age group in the workforce for the next 20 years, there’s no reason for us to discriminate against ourselves.
Personally I find swapping around the variable and re-reading things, does help to get a more 360 perspective. So say s/Gen X/Women/, s/millennial/male/ as an example. It's a tip I've learned over my many years that helps to grasp things fairly and helps with many aspects in life to get a fair perspective across to any mindset. Also when you can transpose or flip the variable and come to the same conclusion all the time, then you know that your doing things right and fairly.
That all said, when I was younger I'd laugh at older people who said "School is the best days of your life", then I grew up and appreciated its wisdom more. TAX's alone sure drives that home.
But no, I can't support your theory based upon my personal experiences. Not saying that you totally wrong and certainly be the case in some cases/people - though none personally I can attest to myself.
Then we had a 58 year old engineer apply for an open position. Happy to say that we hired him and it was purely on merit (even sponsored his visa). The retirement age is 60 but his ambitions go beyond that. Needless to say he is one of the best on our team right now.
I'm not sure that's a great reason to condone illegal discrimination.
I think some companies and some founders have thought engineering was an area where they could cut corners by not hiring experienced people, and they have learned this is a good way to fail.
That being said, you want a mix - more seasoned people leading the direction, processes, and technology selection; and younger people for their energy, enthusiasm, and willingness to learn new things.
Experience is a weird one in that it's what they've chosen to do (ok to use) but wanting to see more experience will either mean they had more time to do things (not ok to use) or didn't waste so much of the time they had (ok on the surface, but you'd need to know the person's age to calculate whether or not the amount of experience you desire was within the range of possibility for them).
Experience is really about making mistakes and learning from them and that takes time - there's really no substitute. People who are ahead of their years usually started earlier and worked harder at it.
So the problems I see are a team that's all one or the other and generally that's not good -- it's impossible to find a group of 10 new-grad engineers who all over-perform their age by 10 years.
Granted they tend to be more expensive, but older people have numerous advantages that deliver value which more than offsets the direct costs of salary and benefits:
- More experience (obviously!): not just in terms of work, but in terms of life
- This often means better social skills, and also greater resilience
- Experience means they're often just better at what they do than less experienced staff
- They tend to have family commitments, which means they want to work sane hours, which to me helps set a healthy cultural precedent
- They tend to know themselves well, and are often more settled/content; this can mean less political game playing and jockeying for position/trying to prove themselves. This isn't to suggest they lack ambition, although their priorities are often different, but they tend to be more graceful in trying to achieve their ambitions
- They seem less likely to burdened by an overdeveloped sense of entitlement
All of these are generalisations and there will, of course, be exceptions, but I think it's hard to argue against these characteristics as being more prevalent amongst older workers.
When it comes to tricky pastoral and technical situations, I often find myself leaning quite heavily on the wisdom of my older team members. I really wouldn't be without them[1].
[1] N.B., at 43 I'm no spring chicken myself.
Those can be young too, but I guess since time is a factor here, the older people are the higher the chances they got >5 years of business as usual in their pockets.
I personally prefer diverse ages in my teams, but I also met some awesome devs who learned their skills with analog computers, haha
Most young corporate employees are promoted on a schedule. The inputs to that algorithm are age and performance.
Large companies explicitly discriminate against young employees by paying them less and refusing to promote them without considering their age.
You're probably conflating age and experience level here. You also seem to be assuming that people necessarily get promoted at regular intervals based on age - that's flat-out demonstrably not true. If it was true, everyone at age X would be a manager, everyone at age Y would be a director, etc. I've consulted with a lot of big cos and it's extremely common to see people well into their 40s who haven't made it to a manager role, and certainly most people will never make director no matter how old they get.
What happens is that there tend to be implicit experience minimums, not age minimums. To get to manager you need X years experience in the industry/department, director requires Y years, etc. If you start later in life, the age at which you hit that minimum will change. Big co promotions are also tied into politics and visibility of things you've worked on. Plenty of young people shoot up the ranks quickly because they're either well-connected or talked/lucked their way into working on something of high importance and visibility to the company early on.
"You aren't a manager, therefore your career is a stalled-out failure" is a pretty outdated view. It's getting to be the norm for companies (at least in tech) to have parallel career tracks for managers and individual contributors. Principal/staff engineers at big tech companies have more responsibility and higher compensation than almost any of their management-track colleagues. I'll grant you that the very top position (CEO) is always a management role, though.
Tech industry especially the cutting/bleeding edge segment, is a crapshoot. Its survival depends on breaking rules, boundaries, assumptions and being starry-eyed believers
Seasoned engineers appear to "project" they are fixated on things knowingly or unknowingly. If you are doing it unknowingly - time to review one's communication style.
Also, this segment survives (or emerges out of) by riding the technology shifts. For example, here is a shift in the software programming segment. green screen -> desktop -> web -> mobile -> deep learning.
Most companies do prefer to hire senior members who have experience with prior technology segment and are attempting a newer one.
This gives me hope, as I love my job and do not intend to leave my chosen career anytime soon.
Expectations of one's job are vastly different (fulfill all of my personal needs versus provide financial stability to support my personal life; work-life blend versus work-life balance).
Ethics are different (Adderall will get me through crunch time versus ugh! crunch time!; give me little projects like I had in college versus give me an area of responsibility and a mandate).
Standards are different (this project will be dead/replaced in a year, or I'll be at a new gig, so building quality is a waste versus always build quality, the definition of which I've determined based on decades of experience).
There's a gap of political perspective as well (boomers and, to an extent, Gen-Xers screwed up the world versus inheriting the established business/social order was generally accepted).
Easiest to understand is a vast difference in language and cultural reference points - not as different as an ESL candidate but on that same spectrum.
In my 40s, now, and for a few reasons, looking at having to self-reinvent, again. Opportunity cost is very high and desired outcome uncertain from all preferred choices. While I try to remain positive and productive, I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit that I am scared that I will never again work in a mentally-engaged, fulfilling profession.
In my day to day work, I recognize that a lot of what I do could just as easily be done by a college intern. It's those rare occasions when I can stop a terrible decision that my experience comes into play. I will speak up when a PM wants to launch a stupid idea, or an Exec tries to pursue a strategy that I know will fail. It's those rare but valuable instances that I highlight in my performance review.
And still, I don't know how long I will be able to stay ahead of the curve and one day I might not be able to justify my value. Age discrimination is a symptom of a larger problem to which this hyper-rational capitalism we've inherited is subjecting all of us, young and old. Prove yourself or die, it's actually quite disturbing.
In order to escape my situation, I removed 19 years of work experience and joined a boot camp where 90% of the things that were explained were already known to me.
Last year a fresh hire (white male graduated from a second-tier US college) was making 50% more than all of us (mostly brown men in their 30s and 40s), not in the same position but at a lower one. Most of my co-workers are on H1b visas so they get underpaid that way. The other trick they use is to hire you as a contractor. All of this is happening at an Indian/American outsourcing firm which is where most of this stuff happens on a regular basis - at the bottom of the industry.
After 1000 applications I gave up trying to find a managerial role (with 10 years of managerial experience abroad, plus a top 10 MBA). I was passed on by companies who hired the younger mba candidates (I was 35 at the time). I went back to my country, got a green card, moved back to America and spent months trying to find a position. I settled for a position doing something that I used in my 20s.
For a lot of people, age discrimination is just a fairy tale. But the reality is very clear: millions of Americans are overqualified for their jobs (See this article by USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/27/study-...), millions more have left the IT industry, and millions more have lost their jobs due to outsourcing or younger hires. A large percentage of people in hiring positions see employees as cattle - hence they go for the younger ones. Experience is not quantifiable, and especially not by the laughable tests that companies use nowadays for recruitment.
My life was hard, I lived in the trains of Manhattan. I lined of for food in soup kitchens for nearly two years. To get out of my situation, I worked four odd jobs simultaneously. After the biggest suffering of my life only one thing pulled me out: I took 20 years out of my resume. I deleted awards, titles, certifications, international experience, newspaper articles, publications, you name it.
Today, the job market is very clear to me. Companies are trying to compete and will hire the best candidate they can find. But, as you age life gets more and more complicated and you might fail to land a good job. Maybe you are an immigrant and your English pronunciation is lacking, maybe you are not willing to pull all nighters, or maybe you are not as good with newer technologies. Maybe one of those things is at play, but what happens when you are hired, get the highest performance review (above all your coworkers), see the young college grad fired after only two months and reflect back on your situation?
At that point, like I did, you start to think about whether age discrimination is real. For me, it is.
I'm 35, so I wouldn't qualify as young but neither old.
Businesses tend to recruit younger devs for few reasons:
- They can be easily convinced to work longer hours
- They are typically paid much less
However there is one trait in older devs that make them undesirable:
- They tend to carry baggage from the past. This comes in various flavors, such as biases one has regarding the path of their careers, their interpersonal relationships (social and official), technology choices etc.
The thing about biases are that the mind that nurtures them can easily justify them, thus making the very biases appear rational and logical.
Furthermore not all biases are negative.
They are a useful piece of memory that comes with experience. The question is: Can you consciously choose when to apply the bias -or- Is your mind driven compulsively to apply them indiscriminately?
I would argue that victimhood about agism does not help anybody. If you are in a craft, where the barrier to entry is low, be prepared to compete with the fresh crop of talent coming in.
There's a lot more I could write about this. But I leave it for another time.
- They can be easily convinced to work longer hours
- They are typically paid much less"
Older workers and younger workers are paid the same way - they agree on a salary when they start working and that's what they're paid. It's so common on HN to see age discrimination dismissed as not real because of pay. That argument doesn't make any sense. The same goes for working conditions. If you're hiring someone for a position that requires you to work certain hours, that doesn't really have anything to do with the age of the applicant.
And anyway, this article wasn't about software development, which has unique characteristics.
When I was freshly out of university, it was easy to play various tricks on me, such as agreeing on a salary for 40 hours a week, and then convincing me to do a lot of unpaid overtime. (I am not even talking about using various dirty tricks; just asking me nicely would do, because I had no idea of value of my time and zero negotiation skills.) If you tried to do the same thing to me now, I would be much better at keeping my boundaries.
https://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-ba...
Here I'm getting voted for saying people with experience tend to gather biases.
Of course I never denied that younger people don't have biases. And I conceded that not all biases are bad. :whatever:
The whole point is that you're not given a fair chance to compete, with your resume being discarded simply because you are older.
Meanwhile, I find that there are increasingly more opportunities for experienced devs in their 30's and 40's. I suspect boomers were under the impression that 40 was already 'not so young' or 'too old' in terms of performance/productivity, but that's a vision from 1960, not 2019. People are slow to adapt to demographic realities, it's a generation's game.
As a hiring manager, I’d much rather hire someone whose work I already know or based on a personal recommendation from someone whose opinion I value. Combing through resumes is risky and time consuming. Please (!) help me help you by dragging yourself out of the pool of resumes and into one of the top two categories.
Not a fair competition if the people hiring are biased by a false notion of "younger === better", when I was young I noticed that the older devs had their shit together in ways I didn't and I made an effort to learn from them (things like thorough documentation, keeping a log of things that broke for next time, writing the code, then rewriting it to it's simplest form, the avoidance of 'clever' code and clarity over clever that kind of thing).
As for biases, yeah it is easy to get jaded and see "Super shiny Foo" as another Bar that you dealt with a decade ago with the same mistakes (and to an extent that can be true) but the world turns.
I've joked for decades that if you want to know what next years hotness will be look at what the academics in the field where doing 20-25 years ago.
After all, experience is learning from your mistakes, wisdom is learning from other peoples.
When one begins the career, one keeps hearing in the interviews "we want more experience". Ok then, 10 years down the road and they say "it's not experience what you've acquired, but bias".
Just whatever it takes to lowball you, playing the nasty "you're not worthy" interview game. The "bias" is the same bollocks as an "inexperience" (from the perspective of the interview negotiations).
I find this ultra terrifying. This is an advanced technical field yet the same old "we're the gateway we'll use it against you -- future colleague -- without hesitating". Some things never change
that said, i think bias peaks after a few years, after that, people get more and more experience that helps them keep their bias in check.
i was like that. i had a strong bias against programming languages that i didn't know anything about. it was prejudice, pure and simple. but as i learned more and more, i realized the errors of my ways, and bias was replaced by experience.
Eternal September in design and frameworks is so popular largely since it eliminates the problem of HR looking for the most years of experience. HR's terrible innefficiency is going to hurt someone, but the actual results are very interesting. In multiple framework cycles in industry one can see many a problem just below the threshhold of importance to a todo app might have initial structure to be solved by a first designer, then that structure is written over in a redesign, then a new cycle fixes another problem that had a clear fix in the old design, now it will be hard and therefore done incorrectly in a way that ensures it will never get solved given the frameworks cycles of starting over with new developers. The end result is a dead pile of mush that can't compete with a new framework with fresh style for todo apps.
Naturally these behaviors are not some problem with employees, the overall restructuring of industry has made it important to get repaid for redoing things over and over the wrong way such that there is always something important to get credit for. There is no longer an industry that keeps workers for life because it is profiting and accepts that their later work has diminishing returns because all the low hanging fruit was fixed long ago.
this happens as soon as you switch positions or companies - even as early as your twenties.
For example, think of all the people who share their learnings (at work, on Medium, etc) about “this is how we did X at [unicorn company].”
It may be that we are more biased to opinions of people who are similar to us, and dismiss the opinions of those who don’t fit our demographic.
What it suggestsed to me is we need to talk about social skills necessary to navigate roles and relationships between young managers and older workers.
When dealing with junior and inexperienced colleagues, the power relationship seems more ‘natural’. People can reference many years of clear social hierarchies—parent-child, teacher-student, adult-child.
Where is the template for the reverse relationship? Younger, and socially/life inexperienced managers, with ‘junior’ workers who are older by years, and maybe socially very experienced.
Let’s face it, no manager wants to hire someone who threatens their position. And I’ve see the workers who feel a new older worker also threatens their growth trajectory in the company—as if you’re jumping the line.
In my experience some of these problems change dynamic when you work for small businesses, and flatter organizations.
I work in a team which is oldboy's club. I tried various new ways and technologies to make everyone's life easier. But they always shoot down saying "it is running fine". The software is so old and tweaked number of times. I am surprised we have a functional software despite having so many obvious flaws.
How is this claim falsifiable?
London admits having won no major awards recently in a competitive industry. New York comes across as high falutin’. Maybe they’re overpriced for what they bring to the table. Maybe they’re woe-is-me or brash in person too.
In software, productivity is hard to measure. The pressure to keep costs down is strong. As salary expectations rise, we’ve got to up our game. One route is specializing in a niche of a niche, but that is a risky approach. Stack talents to make unique combinations. Every organization needs project and technical management. Talk to people who know, like, and trust you about the challenges of what they’re trying to do at work and what you can do to solve it. Learn how to grow the business. Start your own business or go out as a freelancer.
Sure, we’d all like to sit at the same desk doing the same job watching the raises and perks pile in. Expect to hit a ceiling with that approach. I miss the days of having one problem to focus on for weeks at a time. These days, I’m not just feeding my own family but making sure that lots of other families are staying fed too. That’s a much harder job.