How the Valley treats its experienced people (2018)

> Why are you still working?

> In those five words, the manager managed to say so many things. First, the worker is deemed "old". Then, following from that, why can't they afford to quit? Why haven't they gone off to sail the world? What is their major malfunction which makes them unable to hit the jackpot? With all of the years they have put into this career of theirs, how have they managed to suck?

I'm closing in on 50, and work at a very decent FAANG company, and have been in software my whole life. I don't think I "suck", yet I'm nowhere close to being able to retire. I don't know where this idea comes from that software people, by virtue of their mere existence in the field, all are able to retire at 35 and go off to spend the rest of their life in Bali or something. Or they all start at $400K at 20 years old (you read this on HN a lot). Or they all win the startup lottery, exiting their unicorn with millions in stock option. These are the rare outlier cases that become famous. The rest of us plod along making pretty-decent-but-nowhere-near-neurosurgeon comp, and have the same fears about retirement or job loss that everyone else has. Most of us are perpetual I.C.'s (lowest on the totem pole) their entire careers, topping out at $100K-$150K or so, and if we're lucky, we occasionally job hop for a little pay bump. But we're not living like celebrities. The way some people talk, you'd think we're all one week away from "cashing out" and moving to Malibu.

There just are some people who don't care about career and money. They need money to pay their checks but they don't spend a second thinking about it any other moment. Some people are even more weird and hate specializing and planning, they just do whatever comes into their hand. CSS this, Verilog that, organize a team, interview some candidates, train some sales, build an office network (cabling + rack + AD etc), do some email tech support, proofread some contracts, design some boxes, walk a boss' dog, whatever, don't care, here and now, on and on, year by year, from the day they're in a high school to the day they look like Dumbledore. This is a legitimate way of life for those who are fortunate enough to be uninterested in alcohol.

Money- and status- hungry people don't understand this mindset. They are here to sacrifice their young years doing whatever it takes specifically to grow rich step by step and nothing else, then gtfo. But some people just live, have simple fun and feel no urge to change anything. Someone would say this is out of accord with the American spirit but in fact it's just another kind of it, like that H. D. Thoreau wrote about.

As always, context matters.

Legal and ethical obligations aside (it is illegal in most places, and unethical everywhere [1]) there are (mostly bad) reasons for discriminating based on age in some places.

First though it's worth pointing out that the industry as a whole is young. When i started in the 90s everyone was young. Most businesses didn't have a computer at all. A generation of 90's kids went round writing software, selling computers, building networks and so on. There were -very- few old, experienced folk from the mainframe era floating around.

Today we're in our 50s, so at least we exist, but we're still swamped by folks who started this millennium.

So first problem is that most startups (founded by youngsters) probably encounter a lot more youngers than olders. Since the goal is to get-rich-quick, it seems counterintuitive to hire others who haven't done that.

Secondly, as people develop their careers they slowly stop job-hopping. Most folk in their 50s have found their home. Especially if they're good. So (consulting aside) startup jobs are not that attractive. Cheap pay, long hours, opionated (inexperienced) founders, isn't overly attractive to me.

All of this plays into the idea that "its a young person's game". Which of course is nonsense. We stood on the shoulders of those who went before, and the systems of today stand on ours. The folks who built Unix and Cisco, HP, and so on were all previous generation. Today the people who built the internet are over 50.

The valley may like to discard the old, because they remind us that the VC model mostly spits out failure. But outside that bubble companies mostly value stable, experienced, quality "old folk" who want to provide real value, not scratch lottery tickets.

[1] Ethics are subjective, but we're all getting older, so you might want to sow good karma while you're young.

The reality is there are far more qualified people than jobs, so people are selected based more on fit than need.

Young people are more likely to just fit, while old people are less motivated by trends and more likely to embarrass others by disclosing their mistakes.

One solution is less of a wall/cliff around the job itself. Zoox has a re-entry program for experienced people to assess the fit; like internships, it reduces the uncertainties.

But in a tight job market, no company is driven to expand their options.

And it's not "the valley" treating other people. It's people. I've seen people who disrespect even in the best conditions, and others who offer great respect even when firing people. Good character won't help your career, but it might help those around you.

It is very difficult being a parent, also.

They dont talk about how parents get treated.

It is another form of discrimination quite rampant in tech.

The majority of overconfident folks who make these statements will find out soon enough that their paper valuation was only on paper

Some reasons why a highly capable developer, (or other highly skilled tech worker of some kind) might not be rich to the point of retiring at 50 : (a) came from poor background in the first place, basic things like house deposit, student loans paid off etc didn't come easily (b) immigrant who arrived with very little (c) supports extended family financially (d) has partner that can't earn much or anything for a myriad of reasons - such as poor health, or working in socially important job that pays little (e) health issues that interrupt career and/or health expenses (f) has disabled and//or troubled kids that are tiring and limits their productivity and earning potential (g) issues looking out for ageing parents, caring for them. That's what I can think of off the top of my head. Other posters below listed some others. So anyone who says "Why are you still working" is not only talking complete BS, it's actually dangerous BS. (IMHO, of course ;) )

Back in the day, remarks of the form "If you were any good, you'd be able to leave your current job and walk into a new job within a week" were common on Hackernews. This is kind of like that, but worse -- "If you were any good, your options would have vested and you would have cashed them out, bought a boat, and started sailing the world and writing tiny artisanal computer programs like that Canadian couple by now."

Which is just -- in both cases -- fuck you. Not all of us have that confluence of extreme talent and fantastic luck, and somebody somewhere has still got to write the programs that people still need. At least until ChatGPT takes over that role...

I’m 40. The average IC SWE age in my department, if not company (not FAANG, but same tier) is around 30-32. There’s a handful of older ICs in their mid and upper 40s in the department, but us fourtysomethings are in the stark minority.

I started my career with a total compensation of around 60k. It took me many years from start to break the 100k mark. Even many, many, more years to break into a FAANG level company (and the associated massive TC increase).

Meanwhile I see the interns at this company getting starting offers that exceed my comp at my previous company (senior SWE at an investment bank).

If I was making that much money at 24…yeah, I think I could be retired by now at 40. Assuming I’d maintain a position at this or a similar level company of course.

Then again, 24 year old me might have taken my starting bonus and sauntered into a Porsche dealership and asked for a 911…

> Actually, more to the point, it was the sort of thing you should never think about other people, but this person obviously failed at both.

that seems such a dangerous mode of operation

you should allow yourself to think all the things

I want to note this story got spiked off the home page.

I cant identify any reason other than it is potentially "anti business."