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.
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.
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.
Doesn't make it right.
Just sayin'...
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!"
My fervent goal is to stay an IC through retirement. Doing that successfully requires playing the game.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Making that call at 50 is a lot different than making it in your early 30s, I would think?
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'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.
IT is a sick twisted industry.