Ask HN: Why is that 10+ years experience folks struggle to find work | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why is that 10+ years experience folks struggle to find work

25 pointstunetune45 comments

I see that lots of 10+ years of folks in software struggle to find work while while lots of under 26 command 100K+ salary . I don't want to be cynical and I completely understand and also onboard with everyone should receive compensation commensurate to their talent. In fact, I fully support it.

Lately though, after hanging around on sites like HN, reading quite a lot I am finding an interesting observation. People having 10+ or even 15+ years of experience face greater challenge to find work , be it change of job , finding job in new state etc. where as there are lot of young folks who easily command 100K+ salary.

What is missing glue ? Why people with large experience struggle to find work ? Are we gradually moving into phenomena that if you are 30+ then either be in management or get out ?

Would love to hear your point of view.

View on HN

I haven't found that, or anything even close to that, to be the case at all. Maybe it's a geographical thing? I'm on the East Coast and from what I can see, if you have a "hot" skillset (Hadoop/Big-Data, MongoDB, Clojure, Node.js, Angular/Ember, etc.) you won't have any problem finding a job, regardless of your age.

Personally, I'm 41 with 15+ years of IT experience and I have never felt any sense of age discrimination at all. But, I'm also constantly working to keep my skills current, and I do a lot of things to make myself attractive and known in my area - speaking at events, writing articles, blogging, etc. shrug

My feeling is, if you're sitting at 15 years of experience and you've been, for example, writing Java code for 15 years, go pick up a Scala or Clojure book, or learn R or take the time to learn Hadoop, Spark, Storm, Kafka, MongoDB, etc. If you have skills that are "hip" at a moment in time, I don't think it's usually going to matter much how old you are.

OTOH, if you are a 15 year Java programmer who is still writing Java 1.2 code for a JSP based app that integrates with a COBOL book-keeping system on an IBM S/360, and you refuse to even look at that "new fangled" Java 1.3 or newer, then yeah, you might find yourself in a tough spot if/when they decide to turn off that mainframe.

I agree, there's a difference between having 10 years of experience and having 1 year of experience repeated 10 times doing the same thing. Me, personally, I enjoy learning a lot and I get restless if I don't feel I'm developing my skills and keeping current.

You do realize that you're basically dismissing experts because they specialize instead of learning the basics for another technology each year. Or has one year become enough to be an expert on something?

I didn't read that post that way... I don't think "the same year of experience repeated 10 times" actually leads to expertise. That phrase, at least the way I've always used it and the way I feel I've seen it used, is more like saying "somebody who just keeps doing the same thing over and over again and doesn't even attempt to learn anything new". Ie, it isn't just about not learning new skills, it also includes not improving existing skills and knowledge.

At least, that's the way I always interpreted it.

Experts learn.

Learn what? A new thing every year? How do they become experts then?

Just because you learn a new language or technology doesn't mean you become better at problem solving. It just means that you can solve problems using a different tool.

They learn, for instance, about new developments in their field of expertise, and about more practices and tools they can leverage.

They become expert in problem solving.

This is a good strategy. However, it does seem to raise a new question - why is this more common in IT than other fields (which may beg the question, is it in fact more common in IT than other fields)?

Lawyers and Physicians, Dentists, Nurses, and Dental Hygienists, they all do have to stay current - in fact, I believe that they are legally required to stay current. Now, HN is a tech board, so we don't hear from nearly as many Dental Hygienists here, but I'm going to operate on the assumption that DH's, at age 41, don't encounter the same issues of obsolescence as software developers do.

I think that a big part of this may be something Michael O Church described as "dimensionality" (in an essay on the relative scarcity of women in programming).

http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/dimensionalit...

The dimensionality may be a factor here… just as the path to becoming a programmer is much more vague and subjective than in many other fields, so is the path to remaining relevant as a programmer. It's not that it's strictly harder, it's that it's much more ambiguous.

> Lawyers and Physicians, Dentists, Nurses, and Dental Hygienists, they all do have to stay current - in fact, I believe that they are legally required to stay current. Now, HN is a tech board, so we don't hear from nearly as many Dental Hygienists here, but I'm going to operate on the assumption that DH's, at age 41, don't encounter the same issues of obsolescence as software developers do.

Because they are required as a condition of professional licensing to stay current (and have a documentary trail of staying current that matches and profession-wide accepted definition of what "staying current" means), which means that while there is some risk of being in a specialization for which demand is reduced, it is virtually impossible to not stay current in the manner expected in the industry without voluntarily choosing to abandon the profession. Consequently, its harder to have covert age discrimination with "not being current" as an excuse.

> The dimensionality may be a factor here… just as the path to becoming a programmer is much more vague and subjective than in many other fields, so is the path to remaining relevant as a programmer. It's not that it's strictly harder, it's that it's much more ambiguous.

Sure, but I don't think that is anything inherent in the subject matter ofprogramming that is less clear cut than, e.g., law, in those terms. Its just a difference in the social and regulatory context.

I think the "industry-wide accepted definition" you've referred to is the key here. There's greater awareness of precisely what "staying current" means, and there's a more measurable and straightforward way to fulfill those requirements.

That doesn't mean it isn't rigorous - getting through nursing graduate school and getting board certified as a nurse anesthetist is very rigorous! But my guess is that the path is much clearer. You don't end up getting surprise interview questions about the Fourier transform because you claim to know how to interpret ultrasound.

Actually, I think the key might be that tech changes while we still need people capable of dealing (in depth!) with the old stuff. You don't have lawyers that need to practice today in the legal system of 20 years ago. Medicine learns better (we hope) ways of dealing with the same thing, but no one needs to remain an expert in the treatments we've discarded. Tech needs some expert COBOL programmers until it doesn't.

Keeping your skills current is probably the most important point here. Could you please explain when you do this. Are you in a job that allows this within production projects? Or is this all on your own time outside of your day job? I know some companies run internal projects with the specific aim to help upskill employees in new technology.

At this exact moment, I'm fortunate enough to have a dayjob where I get to do a lot of different things and learn new technologies, etc. But in the past, when I didn't have that option, I just worked on my own open source project(s) and did stuff at night and on weekends, to fill that void.

So basically be a freelancer. Market yourself heavily and learn whatever language or technology your employer uses. At this point, why get a job? You can easily earn more as a freelancer or contractor.

Yeah, that's a very good point.

Can you recommend some good beginner books on Clojure?

I worked with the guy who wrote the Manning book my sibling commenter mentioned, and it's quite good. But if you want to jump into clojure quickly, I can't reccomend Clojure for the Brave and True enough. http://www.braveclojure.com/

I haven't gone very far down the Clojure path myself, but Programmming Clojure[1] from Pragmatic Press is one of the ones I started with. The other one I used is Clojure in Action[2]. There might be better books out there (or not), those just happen to be two that I'm slightly familiar with.

[1]: https://pragprog.com/book/shcloj2/programming-clojure

[2]: http://www.manning.com/rathore/

i like this book http://joyofclojure.com/

Good comments so far, specially those touching on skill-set rust and interviewer bias. I'd like to offer a different perspective, not because is better but because is another uncorrelated factor.

Maybe more seasoned people struggling to find work are looking for jobs as if they were young?

As a single data point, I have 10 years of (paid) experience and a graduate degree. When I was about 30 I struggled a lot to find any IT related position. Part of it had to do with me doing the same thing as all the fresh crop of B.A.s were doing at the same time: send resumes, apply to jobs online, contact my alumni association, etc.

The thing is that I was competing in a market where I was seen as past the pull date: overqualified and too expensive for entry level positions, but still not mature enough for management.

Fast forward 8 years and I am doing much better. One thing I accidentally discovered is that there is a lot of weight in having a list of colleagues that know you, trust you, and are willing/able to let you know of career opportunities that are not heavily publicized. I have been in both sides of that kind of relationship and it is a win-win.

So, maybe some people struggling may benefit from being a little more social? Or maybe their own network is very isolated (all work at the same place) so they all enter times of need at the same time and are not able to help each other out?

Overall in development I don't see problem for 'experienced' people to find (good) jobs. I do see problem for people who have only mastered the tools, method, paradigms etc that were common when they graduated 20 years ago.

(though irony has it that some mainfraim experts can earn a fortune because nobody has that skill any more while some companies do still need it.)

As for cultural fit; you'll see youngsters in t-shirts getting rejected at bigger corporates, and 'older' developers in suits getting rejected at startups. Not necessarily an age thing on a meta level. (or is the question specifically aimed at employment at startups? In that case, ignore my comment above).

Because they are expensive while not necessarily better.

Employers want cheap workers and experience is seen as expensive. This is why most companies have one or two real developers and dozens of juniors learning on the job.

If you're experienced, you're better off building a startup.

I'm 41. This is what I am doing (doing consulting to keep me going until my startup actually starts-up and stays up).

I suspect most 10+ years experience guys are actually 10 * 1 year experience guys. When you have someone like that in front of you in an interview, it is quite difficult to look past the fact that the person has no respect to his job.

This is such a dishonest meme that's of course popular because it plays on natural biases and there are way more people without ten years of experience. An equivalently dishonest statement would be "anyone who repeats the 10 is really 10*1 meme are just junior devs trying to compensate for their lack of skill and experience." Which of those broad generalizations is probable more true?

How do you distinguish between 10*1 years experience and 10 years experience? Is the former assumed until proven otherwise?

I have a work sample test with questions at increasing difficulties. They don't do any better than a junior dev.

After having interviewed over a hundred candidates I can now tell in the first minutes of the meeting. They generally apply for a role they never have done before, are overdressed for the occasion and talk flawlessly with confidence.

So people that specialize in a field and become experts have no respect for the job. But the ones that hop around each year based on what's "hot" are better.

I work with 10 * 1 year guys at work - my team leader. I know more languages than him, and I still write better SQL than him (one of the things he does know). Making an effort to learn something new doesn't stop you specialising in other areas. Also sticking to a one set of technologies doesn't mean you will automatically get good at them.

Did you stop and think why he is the team leader and not you? Maybe having a deeper understanding of something is more important than playing with multiple things at once.

Always switching technologies will get you only basic knowledge in each of them. Going past the surface requires daily use and years of constant evolution. That's how you become an expert in something. Deeper understanding. Not broader.

He was in the right place at the right time and got lucky. Not through any competence.

Always switching technologies won't get you in depth knowledge, but it will show you different, possibly better approaches. I would say a bit of both experience, as well as learning new ways of doing things helps.

I learned Java at university. Inheritance and Polymorhpism were like black boxes until I learned Perl afterwards, and the mechanisms are there in front of you (OOP in Perl is a bit of a hack, but it makes it transparent how it works). That (and other features of Perl) helped my understanding of Java.

Being a good team leader and being a good developer aren't the same thing. You can be an amazing team leader but suck at being a developer. There are a lot of team leads that are team leads just because they got there first. I've seen one who struggled at basic problem solving.

However I get what you mean. The guy does seem to be a bit up himself.

Agreed, but he isn't good at that either!

10 * 1 year people don't specialize in anything. They just repeat the first year experience 10 times.

There is no job shortage, even for people with 10 years+. The problem is there are far too many jobs. Contact me at zq@nemcv.com and if I can't find you a job then I will personally give you USD $1000!

> Why people with large experience struggle to find work ?

#1 Reason: ineffective, non-focused job search strategy. #2) Passive approach, negative or even a pessimistic attitude. #3) They've stopped learning and growing.

I have the feel that the salary stops growing up very quickly. Do a 10 years guy earn more than 200~300k/year? Or it says in 100k/year for ever?

It's a mentality thing, nothing to do with years [or lack of thereof] experience.

It's because the people hiring you are in their late 20s and have culture fit as the second most important attribute. I've seen it first hand where my team chose a 30 year old man child over a 40 year old. The latter actually got marks against him because he wore a suit to the interview.

grumpy old 10+ myself, I can answer for me: because for me it is boring to play the comedy.

Contact me at zq@nemcv.com, I have personally helped 1000s of people in your exact situation to find the right job. Just be ready to take the red pill! :)

Why -2 points? You should be trying to help this guy get a job, instead of giving him bogus advice!

PS: Its free!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com