Comment by ChrisMarshallNY | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisMarshallNY | Hacker News Reader

ChrisMarshallNY

Don't even get me started (just take a shufti through my posting history on this very site. You'll see this is a subject that has my attention).

> while the experience that comes with age is valued in fields like music, it counts against you in tech.

Yup. The Jurassic-scale disasters that are becoming increasingly common, these days, are evidence of unsteady hands at the wheel.

I'm not saying that older folks are better. In many cases, we can be overconservative and overcautious, but that isn't such a bad thing, when the stakes for a blowout are so high.

I have always felt that tech needs to follow the same model as every other damn industry since the start of history, which is to have experience work with youth. They balance each other out.

I feel that when one of them gets too much power, Bad Things Happen.

In my case, I was finally laid off, after a 27-year run at one of the world's marquee imaging companies (which I think was overbalanced by experience). I started looking around for more work, as I wasn't really up for retirement (which I was quite capable of doing).

I was absolutely shocked at how shabbily I was treated, and fairly quickly gave up the search.

I find it offensive, that companies are so self-destructive; especially smaller companies, where a top-shelf employee could "make or break" the company. I have a fairly unique confluence of skills that would have made a startup very happy (I've been ARCHITECTING and SHIPPING software, since my very first engineering project, in 1987. I am quite used to production engineering. I've been doing it my entire adult life. I've heard that could be useful, to some companies). I was also quite willing to work for a lot less money than most, as my retirement was set, and I was looking for work that interested me.

Instead, I was rather quickly told -in no uncertain terms- "Go away, old man. No one wants you."

I took the hint, and found some non-profit folks that were doing work I find interesting, and started working with them, for free.

They are quite happy with my work.

You post this all the time. You did 27 years at one single company, as you point out so proudly and often. After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable. It isn't your age, as so many others on this chain have pointed out. You didn't build your CV to be attractive to new employers at all, and when eventually that became relevant again, you were out of luck.

I read your posts whenever I see them, it's obvious you're quite bright. I really don't understand how you don't see this.

Why does doing 27 years at one company make someone unhireable? It's one thing if he used the same old tech for 27 years, but without that assumption, seems like ageism to say 27 years at one company is an obvious ground for disqualification.

After a thousand threads on why tech hiring is hard, I don't think I need to re-hash that getting signal from noise is complex and imperfect. Out of the two signals, "this person was successful at 8 different companies" versus "this person stuck in one place for almost three decades", which do you imagine is going to get hired?

It isn't ageism, again go read the rest of this thread. It's the nature of making yourself an attractive candidate. If you don't care to play the game, you can't pout and cry "ageism" when you lose the game.

> After a thousand threads on why tech hiring is hard, I don't think I need to re-hash that getting signal from noise is complex and imperfect. Out of the two signals, "this person was successful at 8 different companies" versus "this person stuck in one place for almost three decades", which do you imagine is going to get hired?

One can also take this as: "this person jumps jobs often, everything I invest in them will probably have not a good/long ROI" vs. "this person was a loyal employee that was so good he was kept for decades"

A few jumps surely do not hurt, are even good to get some different POVs and such, but if we get people that were barely one or two years at a company at max it always rings a few alarm bells.

But, either way its generalization, the reasons for why either situation happened are relevant to make a sensible decision.

I.e., the answer to "why switch so often?" or "why stuck for so long and why now?" are key.

> I.e., the answer to "why switch so often?" or "why stuck for so long and why now?" are key.

This is really the key.

As another anecdotal datapoint to add to this thread, I've held three SWE positions over the past four years and will be starting my fourth, at Google, next month. Naturally the recruiters and hiring managers asked about the short stints at each company, but given that my reasons for each departure were reasonable (company acquisition, COVID, and location), they didn't have any objections.

> Out of the two signals, "this person was successful at 8 different companies" versus "this person stuck in one place for almost three decades", which do you imagine is going to get hired?

Why is the assumption not the opposite?

"This person failed at 8 companies" vs "This person was success at one for almost three decades"?

Why is it a sign of success if you are at a company for a short stay before going to the next? If anything, I'd imagine that a short stay would be more likely related to getting PIPd or unable to get promoted/grow there.

Your counterpoint is valid only if reviewers are looking at the number of companies.

Resumes usually include the list of major achievements at that role.

It's the combination of the two that people look for.

Looking at just quantitative things like number of companies is terrible. Looking at the combination of qualitative and quantitative aspects of a CV/Resume are what make for an attractive candidate.

> You did 27 years at one single company, as you point out so proudly and often. After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable.

Next time you hear someone complain about why programmers jump jobs ever 2 years, point them to this cynical and stereotyping comment.

In my opinion this is no different from saying "What, you didn't graduate from college? Well, obviously you are unhireable", but I bet 'Icathian would be much less likely to say that to a non college-educated programmer looking for work.

For some reason, stereotyping based on tenure, which correlates strongly to age, just seems to fly wild in our industry.

I said nothing about what is fair, or what should be. I'm describing what is. Programmers jump jobs every 2-4 years (myself included) because it's the best way to reliably get good pay increases, and because staying more than 10 years at one company often makes it harder to get hired at the next place.

You can blame me for recognizing that all you want, but it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry. I want it to always be easy to find lucrative, interesting work, and I'm willing to play the game to keep it that way for myself. I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly.

> but it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry.

Doesn't make it right.

Just sayin'...

> it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry

There are a lot of bad things about our industry, repeating the stereotypes that lead to them is still harmful. Which brings me to...

> I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly.

Simple: If you were in a a position where you were screening resumes, I think you would rule out people with long tenures purely on the basis that the tenure was long.

I am saying that this amounts to age-based discrimination, and you should think about it rather than parroting the assertion "Obviously you're unhireable, you worked somewhere for 27 years". And even if you refuse to think about this, my hope is that other commenters will.

And maybe, just maybe next time they see a resume with 27 years of experience at one company, they will think "Wow, this person will bring an interesting point of view to the team – they have been through 5 times the tenure of an average VP and have seen the rise and fall of several projects. Let's hire them!"

If it makes you feel any better, I did the hiring manager thing for 2 years before deciding I couldn't stand it, and the average age of my team was 55. I did my bit to not exacerbate this situation.

My fervent goal is to stay an IC through retirement. Doing that successfully requires playing the game.

> ...the average age of my team was 55. I did my bit to not exacerbate this situation.

I must say I am pleasantly surprised! Please accept my apologies, and an upvote.

> I must say I am pleasantly surprised! Please accept my apologies, and an upvote.

I concur. I know that you're "just playing the game as set by the rule-makers."

I'm in an unusual position. I'm not looking for work (and, after a few years on my own, I couldn't be dragged into the rat race with a locomotive).

That means that I get to say things like "Oi guv! That bloke's starkers!" Won't make me popular, and probably won't change anyone's opinion, but I'll do it, anyway. It's my nature.

Honestly, as someone who reviews tons of resumes for my team, I wouldn't see 27 years at a company as bringing an interesting point of view by itself.

I'd look at what they've accomplished in those 27 years. This is no different than someone with 5 years or even 1.

If someone only has a couple notable things in 27 years , then I'm not sure what they're bringing to the table.

If someone has the same number of notable things in 5 years, then that speaks more to the level of work they're innovating at.

In short, it's really about the meaningfulness of what they've done during that time, relative to the tenure. Tenure alone is meaningless IMHO.

I've interviewed too many people who have careers longer than my life, who have basically just gotten by. I've also interviewed people who've done amazing things year on year.

The latter are the people I seek to build out the team. The former don't add much, unless they're really rock solid devs who've stayed in top of things. But if they're just alright? Then why wouldn't I hire someone more junior when they're giving me the same results, for cheaper, and are usually easier to mold and train?

Oh yeah...I'm a high school dropout with a GED, and some redneck tech school training.

I've managed to do OK, even with that. In fact, it has probably helped me to be much, much better at my job.

I call it "the Boy Named Sue" problem[0]. I have had to deal with so damn much adversity, in my career, that it has forced me to constantly deliver, and go "above and beyond," in everything I've done. I've looked up a lot of noses, and it does make me cranky, but it has also forced me to be pretty good at what I do. No one will take me at my word. I have to show them.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOHPuY88Ry4

> anyone would be unhireable

So since you are defending the practice, please explain what is it about spending your entire career at a single company that makes you unemployable anywhere else.

And please don't assume that that means never learning anything new during 27 years.

Can you name another career where holding one job too long makes you unemployable, and where people actually defend this?

You're conflating recognizing reality with defending a given hiring practice. I've responded to other comments with more detail.

It really depends on what those experiences were at the same employer. I'm not the OP and not in the same boat. But I've been at the same employer for more than 30 years.

It should depend on that, and perhaps to some degree it does. But in even the best case scenario, where every few years was brand new knowledge, you've still put the obstacle in your path of convincing new hiring managers of that when their default assumption may be otherwise.

You've added a degree of difficulty (we could quibble about how much of one but whatever) to the process that didn't need to be there.

> so proudly and often

Not proudly, but often. Be nice. I thought we were supposed to be nicer to each other here, than in other Internet venues, but I'm often wrong.

> You didn't build your CV to be attractive to new employers at all

I see things differently. Don't forget that I was a hiring manager for most of that time. My CV reflects what I would have considered to be a "dream employee" for most of that time. It is not one that current companies find attractive, and that's actually (IMNSHO) a real problem, in today's industry. In most other industries, it would have been a "We need to get this guy on board right now" kind of thing. In tech, it's "He spent all that time at one company? He must be terrible, and insecure."

I am quite aware that having spent 27 years at one company is actually considered a bad thing. I really do see how the industry works. I won't change my expectations to meet the new reality.

If no one wants me, then I'll do my own thing. I'm very grateful to have that option, and my heart goes out to the folks that don't have that option.

> Not proudly, but often. Be nice.

Apologies. I struggle when people I respect seem to miss things that are obvious to me, I should have kept my tone in check better.

Fair enough. If the winning move for you is not to play, that's hardly a bad choice. I don't think it would work for me.

> After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable

I've been with my current employer for 4 years, and all going well I'll stay with them until retirement (I'm almost 50 now, so another 15-odd years). The pay is good (for where I live), the work is varied and mostly interesting. It'd seem a bit crazy to jump ship just in case they take against me at some point in the future, no?

I think it would be in your case, but it is something of a gamble, isn't it. At some point I'll hit the job I want to (and think I have a good shot at) retiring from and probably try for it myself. I'm not really sure how that'll look for me.

Making that call at 50 is a lot different than making it in your early 30s, I would think?

I guess everything is a gamble :/

> You post this all the time. You did 27 years at one single company, as you point out so proudly and often. After a stint like that, anyone would be unhireable

IT is a sick twisted industry.

> In my case, I was finally laid off, after a 27-year run at one of the world's marquee imaging companies (which I think was overbalanced by experience). I started looking around for more work, as I wasn't really up for retirement (which I was quite capable of doing).

Are you "out of practice" in the job search?

This comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28758320) states:

> Delete the first 10 years of your work history and take the date off your CS degree

> I started getting significantly more responses to applications and inquiries from recruiters on LinkedIn

I understand that. I also have gotten advice to dye my hair.

I will do neither. That's dishonest.

If no one values me for the skills and experience I have, then I have no interest in working with them (not "for," "with." -A big problem, in today's working world, is the attitude that companies are doing people a favor by hiring them. If someone hires me, they don't get me as a servant. I've worked way too long and hard to be treated that way. Another problem, is that asking for simple, basic, human respect, is considered "arrogant").

I am very, very honest. This was actually a big plus, at my last company. It got me a seat at the "inner table" of a highly conservative Japanese corporation; something few Westerners ever experience.

I refuse to be dishonest. I won't hide my age, experience, or weaknesses. I also won't exaggerate. People often tell me that I'm exaggerating. Then, they take the time to look at my track record (which is very available -people like to lob insults before actually checking to see if they apply). Things get quiet, after that.

Do you think dying your hair is dishonest? I wear shoes with a bit of a lift because generally, at least in the west, taller men are treated a bit better in the workplace. Sure it's unfair, but it's certainly not going to change in my lifetime, so I happily play the game.

I don't see dying your hair as any different from wearing makeup or attractive clothes. Humans are social and visual creatures, we find it easier to trust other humans we like the appearance of.

To me, it is dishonest; if the reason is to convince potential employers that I'm younger than I actually am. I have my own standards of Personal Integrity. I won't project these standards onto others, but I feel that I need to adhere to them.

I'm also not particularly tall (5'6" -1.9m). I wear dorky shoes (at least, according to the fashionistas on HackerNews[0]).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28579724

> I have my own standards of Personal Integrity. I won't project these standards onto others, but I feel that I need to adhere to them.

I have to say that is quite well phrased.

I think that's a problem for those hiring; in itself. I see it when I ask people why they won't hire the Amish or Mennonite crew for some job they'd do well. It's not about the cost, there's no doubt the result will be better; it's not schedule... It's just "these people are odd" and don't have the proper attitude.

Dieing your hair in response to ageism is like running the coal-powered AC in response to global warming. It might be necessary in limited cases but in general is feedback that makes the problem worse.

Perhaps you're misinterpreting me?

> If no one values me for the skills and experience I have, then I have no interest in working with them

I generally take the same attitude.

You don't have to list everything on your resume. It's not dishonest to leave out experience that's no longer relevant. You also don't have to dye your hair, wear platform shoes, or get plastic surgery. (Although Converse was trying to push platform chucks when I ordered some new sneakers a few weeks ago.)

All your resume needs to do is make you appealing enough to get a callback. It doesn't have to list out every single detail.

But, I do need to point something out 20 years into my career: A lot of development shops don't know how to work with mature developers, nor are they budgeting to hire someone with 30+ years experience. The "people" challenge of onboarding into a team where I have more experience than my manager is often harder than the actual work.

> A lot of development shops don't know how to work with mature developers, nor are they budgeting to hire someone with 30+ years experience. The "people" challenge of onboarding into a team where I have more experience than my manager is often harder than the actual work.

Well, none of my attempts made it past the second screener, so I wouldn't know.

As far as "budgeting" goes...I was once told (by a recruiter), that I'd need to "ask for less," because I'm older.

I was already asking for peanuts, because I am not really interested in money, and was actually looking for the kind of place I could make a difference; where they often can't afford a lot of "top-shelf" talent. That's a trick I've always used in my career. I have worked for less, at places that interest me. It's still allowed me to get to a point where I don't need to work (I live frugally, avoid personal debt, and save like crazy).

I'm used to "making a difference." That may seem arrogant; but you haven't worked with me. I'm making quite a difference, right now. In fact, in the window behind this browser, I see that my latest TestFlight upload is done, and I'm about to make the team quite happy.

"I also have gotten advice to dye my hair." - sorry if this is a little off-topic, but, it strikes me how lucky us blokes are. That's about the most "appearance advice" we'll get in the workplace, while women feel pressurised to wear make-up at work, select their clothes super carefully etc. Maybe experiencing ageism might have a silver lining if it helps men empathise more with the kind of nonsense women go through daily in the workplace...

Absolutely. I also have some "scrappy" educational creds. That gets me a lot of condescension, as well.

I'm still a bloke, though, so I can't say I know how they feel.

The kind of experience that ages well is operations and organizations i.e. knowing how to run the business, not technology. An advantage of having worked at many companies that can't be overstated is the exposure to many different ways of addressing myriad organizational and operational challenges in different business contexts in practice. My experience with technology 20 years ago is worthless. But my experience working in so many organizations and types of businesses is still extremely relevant -- humans don't change.

This is where working at a single company for 27 years works against you, it implies a lack of the kind of experience that makes older individuals uniquely valuable. There is little generally applicable skill around architecting and shipping software; the practical constraints on how those things can be done are often wildly different across companies and industries. Bright and capable people that have spent decades at a single company often struggle to effectively adapt their skills to an entirely different company context. There is practically a meme about Microsoft lifers only being able to work with other Microsoft lifers in Seattle, for example, because empirically it has tended to be true. What you don't have is 27 years of experience applying your technical skills across very different organizational and operational contexts, and that is valuable experience that only years can provide.

That isn't to say you can't, just that your experience doesn't provide much evidence of it. Anecdotally, as someone also getting up there in age, it has never been easier for me to find work.

What does "getting up there in age" mean?

It has been my experience that the mid-thirties are kind of a "golden window" for senior-level talent. Some people think of it as "older," but not that many.

We're old enough to have had the sharp edges worn away, but not yet old enough to make the management uncomfortable.

Once we start getting into the 40s (or, heaven forbid, the 50s), attitudes start changing -drastically. It's -sort of- OK to be a manager, but not a critical path engineer.

I will say that you seem to be an interesting chap, and I suspect that "the conventional rules" probably don't really apply to your work. Looks like fun.

For me, I like to make stuff that people use. I'm not particularly interested in changing the world (although I have, for a particular demographic -long story). I like getting my hands dirty, and Usability/Accessibility/Localization is a big deal. I like to put simple faces on complicated backends, and open tech to as many folks as possible. Most folks hate "computers," so I try to "decomputerize" tech. It's fun; especially when I see people using my work.

I consider myself to be more of a "craftsman," than a "scientist." It's a labor of Love; not just for my own satisfaction and work, but also for the users of my work. That's one reason I like working with an NPO. My whole family has been in Service, of one kind or another. My younger brother and I are the "redneck engineers." The rest of the family is a bit more Ivy League. My younger brother used to run group homes for kids that are wards of the state. He burned out on that, and became an engineer. He's worked at his [Fortune 20] company for over 20 years. It's a pretty big deal. He's self-taught, like me.

I was reading an article that said that age-compensating plastic surgery is very common in Silicon Valley, and that most patients prefer having the procedure done on a Friday, so they can heal over the weekend, and probably get away with it not being obvious when they get back to work.

New York's ageism problem (although many don't believe that it's a "problem," at all) is much more pronounced than SV (especially in Brooklyn). I'm wondering if a reason might be that NY has been a tech hub for a far shorter period of time, and we haven't had a "critical mass" of engineers "age out," yet.

I stopped going to (very good, and very energetic) NY meetups, a long time ago. It's abundantly clear that my just being there, is unnerving to a lot of folks. As I walk around the room, a big clear space automatically happens around me; like I'm in the eye of a hurricane. It's pretty obvious that I'm not usually a welcome addition to the milieux. And that's all before I even open my mouth. People don't seem actively hostile; but they avoid me. I don't get dirty looks. In fact, I don't seem to get eye contact at all.

Absolutely no one introduces themselves to me. I'm fairly affable, and have no problem reaching out to others. When I do that, we often have a good chat (although some, I can see, are looking for the exits).

Surprisingly, I often find that the people who avoid me the most, are the older members of the crowd.

That's interesting.

I can have some great chats with younger folks. I never try being "down with the kids," and I know better than to do an "OK boomer" thing. I'm a fairly good listener, and ask questions designed to encourage folks to talk about themselves, and their passions. That usually works well with younger folks.

Chris, I am approximately a decade younger than you, so in my 40s staring at 50. I started off my career at a pretty severe disadvantage, so it took off late. My golden age is now.

You are correct that my unique expertise affords me some significant advantages. For certain fascinating classes of computer science problem, I’m the person everyone calls. My true CV is far weirder than the public ones. But ironically, that isn’t what companies typically pay me for except tangentially. I mostly get paid to fix broken engineering organizations because apparently I am good at it and there is no version of “broken” I haven’t seen before. I still think of myself as an engineer, and remain extremely technical, but most days I am solving people and organization problems. I am valued more as an executive fixer than for my technical ability despite having some extremely unique technical capability. The market has made it abundantly clear which is more valuable.

I will always love writing code but it is more enjoyable as a (very serious) hobby and craft, albeit with an end product that has often been licensable. I’m not even sure this is a bad thing, since it allows a level of code quality that would never happen in a commercial environment.

FWIW, I’ve always been able to get on with young people and old people, whatever that meant for whatever age I was. I genuinely don’t classify people that way, I am more interested in their experience and knowledge. Especially for engineers, if you are doing cool shit age doesn’t matter.

> if you are doing cool shit age doesn’t matter.

That's always been my viewpoint.

I'm used to dealing with folks across pretty much all ages. I have an "eclectic" social circle that includes (but not limited to) kids still in high school, bikers, ex-cons, scientists, bankers, retirees, and CEOs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com