
The Tech Industry’s Darkest Secret: It’s All About Age - mparramon
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130422020049-8451-the-tech-industry-s-darkest-secret-it-s-all-about-age
======
jasonkester
When I was 7 years old, the Big Scary Thing In The Future was cursive writing.
Once you hit 2nd grade, teachers were going to start tearing up your homework
unless it was written in cursive.

The next year, it was "3rd grade" when teachers would start tearing up non-
cursive papers, then 4th, 5th, 6th and "definitely in junior high". But it
never happened in reality.

In my 20s, the Big Scary Thing In The Future was ageism in tech. Once you hit
30, you'd never find work again in this industry.

Then it was 35. Then 40.

I've given up listening. Every year, in addition to getting better at what I
do, I find that more people want to pay me more money to come program
computers for them.

Now it's certainly possible that the _real_ number is 45, and you'll find me
living in a cardboard box and begging for nickels at the off-ramp in a few
years. But at this point I'm not overly worried about this particular myth.

~~~
k__
Well, the positions of developers seem to shift with age.

I am 27 and work as a GUI-dev. My co GUI-devs are 26 and 32 years old.

But the back-end developers are 38, 43 and 56 years old.

The management in here consists of engineers, too. They are all >40 years old.

Most tech-people I know either got in to back-end development or management
when they got older.

~~~
rubinelli
That's an interesting observation, and it matches with my experience, too.
Specially in larger teams, the senior developers gravitate towards the back-
end, and the 'full-stack developer' is an extremely rare sight.

If I had to guess why it is, I'd say that back-end technologies naturally
evolve slower. Yes, we are in the middle of a Big Data boom, but even then,
the rate at which Hadoop changes is nowhere near Ruby on Rails, to cite two
popular technologies.

~~~
Proleps
> _If I had to guess why it is, I'd say that back-end technologies naturally
> evolve slower._

I think it is this way because back-end development requires more expertise
than GUI development. Steady more experienced developers are better suited
than new hires.

~~~
k__
Many of the back-end devs in here tell me, back-end is easier, because they
can measure everything.

Slow = bad

Fast = good

They probably think a good GUI is a question of taste and can't be measured
and they don't want depend on "luck"

~~~
crag
The front-end guy also deals with the users more. And after spending 20+ years
doing that, us older geeks are more than happy to moved to management or the
back-end. Peace and quite.

------
jdminhbg
Here is where this awful article's bait-and-switch happens:

> Brown and Linden’s analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census data
> for the semiconductor industry revealed that although salaries increased
> dramatically for engineers in their 30s, these increases slowed after the
> age of 40. After 50, the mean salary fell by 17% for those with bachelors
> degrees and by 14% for those with masters degrees and Ph.Ds. And salary
> increases for holders of postgraduate degrees were always lower than for
> those with bachelor’s degrees (in other words, even Ph.D degrees didn’t
> provide long-term job protection).

> It’s the same in the software industry. Prominent Silicon Valley investors
> often talk about youth being an advantage in entrepreneurship. If you look
> at their investment portfolios, all you see are engineers who are hardly old
> enough to shave. They rarely invest in people who are old.

The first paragraph, which contains the data that gives the veneer of
respectability, is about the semiconductor industry. Even then, salaries don't
actually decrease until people hit the beginning of retirement age
(surprise!).

In the second paragraph, we switch to the software industry, where it's "the
same" (no data to support that, natch). The supporting anecdote isn't even
about employees, but investees... What proportion of people receiving money in
the software industry do so via investment rather than a paycheck?

Of course the specter of ageism haunts everyone, so the linkbait is effective
and we have 60+ comments here.

------
jgrahamc
Welcome to a recycled three-year-old TechCrunch article:
[http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/28/silicon-valley’s-dark-
secre...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/28/silicon-valley’s-dark-secret-
it’s-all-about-age/)

Now here's the key claim: "increased dramatically for engineers during their
30s but that these increases slowed after the age of 40. At greater ages
still, salaries started dropping, dependent on the level of education. After
50, the mean salary of engineers was lower—by 17% for those with bachelors
degrees, and by 14% for those with masters degrees and PhDs—than the salary of
those younger than 50. "

Two points:

1\. Would we expect a linear increase in salary with age? I would not. At some
point the salary would likely 'top out' in any job.

2\. The part about over 50s ignores a very important fact from the study: the
over 50s work less (and therefore earn less). To quote the book: "Workers over
the age of 50 are much more likely to work less than a full year [...]. One in
six engineers aged 51 to 65 reported being paid for less than a full year of
work in 2005 [...]". The book goes on to make a confusing claim about whether
that's voluntary or not (jumping to the 2002 downturn and talking about
interviews with engineers but with no data).

~~~
danmaz74
I think that the real anomaly is that many people really expect salaries to
always go up with age. Which, especially now that people work well in their
sixties, doesn't make much sense, except for some very rare exceptions.

~~~
EternalFury
Minor point...there is this thing called "inflation". It's real. If your
salary doesn't go up every year by at least 1-3%, your buying power gets lower
and you are effectively getting poorer.

~~~
danmaz74
I didn't mention it, but I was talking about going up in real terms.

------
nicholassmith
"The young understand new technologies better than the old do"

No they don't. The young, smart developers who already have strong backgrounds
adopt new technologies, the old, smart developers do the same.

"The young can easily pull all-nighters."

Sure they can, and companies should be moving away from that as the code
quality does drop off past hour 12 unless they're a super talented developer.
In which case they're probably smart enough to know not to work an all
nighter.

If you're not willing to pay $150k for a great developer that's going to get
shit done, you're fucked already.

~~~
michaelochurch
_companies should be moving away from that as the code quality does drop off
past hour 12 unless they're a super talented developer._

    
    
        s/12/7/g
        s/unless they're a super talented developer//g
    

Dirty secret about coding. You're typically at your best doing 3-5 hours per
day of actual programming. If you're doing 6-8 hours, split that with a
workout. The other working time should be spent on design, exchange of ideas,
and learning new stuff.

If you use a high-productivity language like Clojure or Haskell and work on a
green field, you'll find that you _can't_ program for 12 hours straight,
because there's no fat in the development process. Your brain starts to hurt
after 8-9 hours. Personally, I can get useful work done for about 11 hours per
day (I seem to average 65-70 hours per week, including writing which has taken
a lot of my time recently, no matter what my mode of employment) but there is
no way I'd be able to write code for 77 hours per week. Maybe 55 if I really
had to push.

 _If you're not willing to pay $150k for a great developer that's going to get
shit done, you're fucked already._

My first programming job paid just over half of that (well, with a sizeable
bonus, but 3x higher than the "top of range") and I got shit done. Cost-of-
living is also a factor. I would probably build in Austin or Boston (it annoys
me that those cities' names rhyme because they happen to be the top 2
candidates for the 2018 tech hub, as I see it) where the brains-to-dollars
ratio is more favorable than New York's. (New York has plenty of brains; the
dollars are a problem. Fucking rent.)

~~~
fatman
Maybe endurance is a separate ability. Some folks can operate at a high level
for extended periods of time, though their highest level may be below the peak
output of others. I will say I have no quibble with your numbers as averages.
To find someone who possess both skill and endurance is exceedingly rare.

~~~
michaelochurch
_To find someone who possess both skill and endurance is exceedingly rare._

That seems to be an age thing, at least in my experience. Skill goes up.
Endurance doesn't go _down_ per se, at least in the ages that we're talking
about, but it gets a lot more selective.

I can do a long day (14+ hours) if needed, but I'm only 29 and I'm already up
at 5-6 every morning. If I worked at a company that expected the workday to
continue past 9pm (and I did work at once of those when I was younger) there's
no way I'd be able to do it.

------
ecopoesis
My wife and I were talking about this a couple weeks ago. We're both
developers, and have both been working for 12 years at a variety of companies,
large and small, yet neither of us has ever had a colleague who retired.

This article confirms what I suspected, older programmers don't retire, they
just never get rehired after the latest round of layoffs.

------
DanielBMarkham
This is another in a seemingly endless stream of "old people can't cut it in
the coding world" articles. My intent isn't to trash the author or the piece,
it's just that we've been over this ground and I am going to be brief.

The truth, as always, is nuanced. As the author says, it's up or out. If
you're 50 and expect to do be doing the same type of work you did when you're
25, you're mistaken. As programmers we have to constantly be adapting.

The problem here is getting into any kind of attitude that says that you can
coast. There is no coasting. Not in this business. If you're not constantly
reading and trying out new things, your salary is headed down.

~~~
zimpenfish
I've experienced many distinctly average coasters who have gone upwards
quickly. It ain't a meritocracy; being able to politick and play the game is
just as important, sadly.

------
justinhj
The article suggests you can teach everything a $150k programmer knows to a
fresh grad $60k programmer. Damn I want to know about these training
techniques. It's usually 5-10 years depending on domain.

------
gbin
I have a silly remark to make about this article... Isn't it also because
current programmers in their 50's have basically _less_ programming experience
than the ones in their 30's ? I had one of the first usable family computer
when I was 6 and I am already in my late 30's, if you have let's say 20 more
years of experience than me, on what computer did you have them ? My bet is
that it is a picture of what we have now and not a tendency.

------
nsxwolf
"Why would any company pay a computer programmer with out-of-date skills a
salary of say $150,000, when it can hire a fresh graduate — who has no skills
— for around $60,000? _Even if it spends a month training the younger worker_
, the company is still far ahead."

$60,000 (in the Valley?) + A whole month of training = I had to stop reading
the article

------
tosseraccount
Looks like it' time to retire the 40 year olds. It's looking like we're going
to quadruple the number of H-1Bs in the Rubio/Shumer/McCain bill.

(Source , National Public Radio ...
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/04/03/176134...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/04/03/176134694/Whos-
Hiring-H1-B-Visa-Workers-Its-Not-Who-You-Might-Think) )

What H-1B Employers Say

NPR repeatedly tried to interview the biggest H-1B users, but none agreed to
talk.

No one is talking be we all know what's going down.

~~~
nikomen
Problems like this will never get fixed. Too many Americans are too concerned
with watching American Idol to pay attention to the fact that most politicians
(on either side of the fence) are trying their best to destroy the middle
class by padding the pockets of business executives and high net worth
investors. Citizens United, H-1B visas, and many other examples show this.

Thanks for posting this, tosseraccount.

------
pxlpshr
The consumer web is often a culture of 'pop hits' and lots of media; hence the
justin bieber-esque love affair the Valley has for said entrepreneurs. So, yes
-- I do believe that people in their 20-30's are better at identifying these
fads moreso than 40-50. But they're just fads, and fads usually die fast like
the startups born from them. Certainly not all, but most.

That said, I also believe the consumer web is in for some pain (the notorious
A crunch). I get the impression a lot of unqualified 'super angels' felt it
was more important that entrepreneurs become professional money raisers and
media darlings, rather than help them focus on their core business.

When it comes down to it, if you're a seasoned entrepreneur with repeat
successes – you'll be unstoppable for the rest of your life. The Biebers of
startups are edge cases that simply get a lot of attention because it
compliments media's goal for driving pageviews.

------
lsc
But that's the thing. I know some old people (Old, here, is half a decade or
better.) who are still purely technical, but the ones I know that are fully
employed are really good. I mean, not just "I've been doing this longer than
you've been alive" good, but better than I would be if I had two lifetimes to
practice. And they generally don't job hop like the youngsters, either, a sign
of fear of joblessness. (I mean, that's all anecdotal, but eh, for most of us,
that's what we use to sanity-check the statistical data)

My anecdotal data lines up with the statistical data.

There is this perception that you can take a young person and train them
fairly easily; that this is the thing to do. I think with someone older? it's
not so much that hiring managers don't think they can be trained as that it's
/weird/ on a cultural level, for a 25 year old kid to tutor some 50 year old.
Really, I think that's a big part of the problem.

Now, I think the other side of that coin is that for most of us? we hit our
30s, those raises start slowing down, and we start looking for other giant
gains.

I mean, through my teens and twenties, a year without a 20% raise was a
disappointment. And if anything, the raises lagged increases in my actual
effectiveness. In my late 20s, and early 30s? that slows down a lot. I'm
looking around for that next productivity jump, and hey, turns out all those
social skills I didn't have when I was younger? I am not saying I'm smooth or
anything, but hey, I'm a hell of a lot better than I was. It looks to me like
there is some low-hanging fruit (productivity wise) in management.

So that's the other side of the coin; Most of us? a decade or two into our
careers, well, we start looking at management. That explains some of the fall-
offs in Individual Contributor pay; Many of those who can, make a run for
management, and many who are left behind are seen as "not making the cut"
(which is kindof silly, considering the different skillsets required)

------
coldcode
I still find success despite being 55:

[http://thecodist.com/article/yes_i_still_want_to_be_doing_th...](http://thecodist.com/article/yes_i_still_want_to_be_doing_this_at_56)

------
nohuck13
Here is the ginourmous confounding issue the presentation in the article: >
Why would any company pay a computer programmer with _out-of-date skills_ a
salary of say $150,000, when it can hire a fresh graduate — who has no skills
— for around $60,000?

(my emphasis)

So how do you untangle the ageism issue from the skills issue? This article
doesn't, but for the broader question you kinda have to.

How do you control for skills when finding out about ageism?

I'm pretty sure there's ageism in tech. This makes me a little scared. It's
this exogenous thing that I can't control.

I'm pretty sure skills-decay is at least as common as ageism. Skills have
market prices. They change.

This reminds me of a (PG?) essay that said essentially, if you're gonna call
yourself a developer, don't call yourself an [X] developer, because you are
not the language [X]. I suspect it's all the [X] developers out there who are
seeing the most "ageism"

But they what do I know, I'm in my 20s.

[edit: typos]

------
justin_vanw
Right off the top of my head I can come up with all sorts of factors that are
totally neglected in this article, for example:

Survivor Bias: the best and brightest get promoted. This reduces the _average_
'quality' of the remaining people in the original pool, even though none of
the people changed in any way.

Lets say you have a team of engineers, and 5 of them just turned 40. One of
those over the hill engineers just got promoted to be a VP, and another one
leaves to be an independent consultant. Don't you think the two that left the
team were probably among the best in those 5, and therefore were more highly
paid than the other 3? The average salary of your 40 year old engineers just
went down, even though the average salary of the original 5 likely went up by
more than 300%.

------
tuxidomasx
After talking with a few high school teachers, and considering my own
experiences with those at the college level, I believe that today's entry-
level engineer is comparably equal to (if not a step below) the previous
generation's entry-level engineer in terms of programming ability.

If this is true, and the trend continues, then any ageism based on aptitude
could reach a point of diminishing returns very soon.

I would also challenge the idea from the article that "the young understand
new technologies better than the old do." Which I think is less true today
than it was a few decades ago.

I believe this apparent ageism is a result of pattern matching and cost
cutting moreso than a widely held belief that young engineers can outperform
more experienced ones.

------
lunchladydoris
Articles like this terrify me. I'm in my late 30s and I'm only now realizing
that what I want to do is code.

I'm a wet biologist by training and have been doing research and associated
work for a decade. I have little opportunity to code at my current job. What
I'm hoping to do is to formalize and hone my programming skills through some
additional university courses.

Am I wasting my time? Am I forever going to be kicked to the bottom of the
pile of applicants for junior positions because I've already had a career?

If you've been in a similar situation, I'd love to hear how it worked out for
you.

~~~
jaimebuelta
Let me tell a little about what happens to me. After 4 years in my first job
programming, I got burned about it, so I changed to be a consultant for a year
and having my own non-tech business (a shop) for two. Then I came back to
programming, after being for three years (late twenties) without doing
programming stuff... And it was a successful comeback, as I got back with
passion, and learned a lot in a few amount of time, so I really catch up, in
terms of career, with friends that started at the same time, and never quit
programming.

The great thing about coding is that you can show how good (or bad) you are
relatively easy (compared with other fields). There is also a real shortage of
coders right now. If you are good, and you like to code, you can catch up and
stand up over a lot of people that has been doing one year, ten times.

I'd say that one thing you can to do is show up your code (through open
source, etc), extra bonus points if you do something that is useful, and
whenever someone asks you you can say: "Do you know X? I did that" ;-)

------
saintx
The biggest difference from when I was a starving 19 year-old is that I don't
need to use recruiters to find work anymore. It's strange that this article
comes from LinkedIn and it does not mention the power of having connections.
My hope is that by lifting up the people around me wherever I go, I'll build
up a larger, better, and more enthusiastic network of colleagues whose help I
can draw on later.

------
codex
The HN reaction to ageism is interesting--the comments are extremely
skeptical, but of course, HN suffers from survivor bias. Those who wash out of
software development in their 30s and 40s don't read or comment on HN. In
fact, wasting time on social news sites is a young person's game even if
ageism were not a factor.

~~~
zimpenfish
Hey, I resent that remark. I'm wasting plenty of time on social news sites and
I haven't been young for decades.

~~~
codex
Perhaps HN is what's keeping you young at heart!

------
krsgoss
I worked with a talented C++ programmer who had flown airplanes in the Pacific
Theatre in WWII. I don't think he necessarily needed the money as much as just
enjoyed the job but it goes to show that you can still write code when you're
older. We always enjoyed taking him out to lunch on Veteran's day too!

------
tokenadult
Previous submission of canonical URL:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5588058>

One of the comments there sums up the issue: "It's hardly a secret."

------
obviouslygreen
While I can see how this is a problem or potential problem for a lot of
people... our "darkest secret?" Really? We don't have any issues that are
larger than "after your 30's you'll have to work harder?" Our biggest problem,
as stated, is that we can only expect to pull down six figures for a few
years?

This seems to me a serious overstatement and more than a bit of "we're out of
things to write about, let's make this one seem more shocking and hidden than
it is" sensationalism.

------
neovive
It comes down the needs of the employer. Since technology evolves so quickly,
it's hard to find someone with many years experience in trendy languages.
Experienced developers bring additional soft skills that are hard to quantify
and hiring staff often have no idea they even need them until after the fact.
It's easy to just think this guy is willing to do the same for half the price.

More experienced developers bring additional soft

------
rwhitman
The more I think about this the less I think its painting an accurate picture.

Sure _startups_ may not hire older engineers to work at the front of the
application stack, but as engineers age they tend to either start specializing
in an area, moving deeper into the stack or move into leadership roles and the
types of companies that have specific needs in those areas tend to be larger
and more established.

------
josefresco
Investing in youth is not much different than in professional sporting. You
want (as an investor and employer) a young guy/gal who has major potential and
years to produce.

One difference is that athletes tend to compete well physically only when
young (depending on the sport obviously) whereas in tech you can still peck
that keyboard when you're past your physical prime.

------
wanttoknow
Anyone know if Brown and Linden actually agree with this guy or is he just
soiling their reputation by twisting their research?

------
codex
My own impression of the tech industry are that young programmers are like
stem cells--stick them anywhere and they'll differentiate into what they need
to be. However, mature, differentiated developers often find it very hard to
adapt to the second, third, or fourth new wave of tech. companies--both
culturally and technically.

~~~
voidlogic
I don't think this is a true, learning new tech is skill. Back when I was an
undergrad there was a class that basically switched languages once a week
after each homework assignment and every 2-3 weeks it switched paradigm
(procedural, OO, functional, logic/declarative, etc). The idea was that the
tech being used doesn't matter, just the understanding of the theory and the
skill to learn new tech. Anecdotally, every time I switch tech now as a
professional, I feel I get better at it, faster. Learning itself is a skill to
be learned.

~~~
codex
I think that for the majority of people, neuroplasticity decreases with age,
which is attributed to a decline in physiology [1]. I think your personal
experiences can be explained be fact that learning a new technology does not
really involve a lot of change; much technology shares the same underpinnings.

[1] "However, there is an obstacle to learning in mature age: the mental
decline related to the deterioration of brain function, which is determined in
the later stage of life. When the age increases, the ability to generate new
synapses between neurons in response to external stimuli declines; this
ability is the basis of fundamental and complex functions like memory and
learning. The brain ageing causes various changes: reduction in brain volume
and gray matter in particular, progressive atrophy of neurons and their
interconnections, degeneration of cortical regions governing the functions of
sensation, cognition, memory and motor control, metabolic decline of key
neurons and loss of features related to physical and chemical deterioraion
(OECD, 2007).The acquiring of new knowledge and skills becomes therefore more
and more diffcult, and the execution of complex tasks requires more effort
than the younger learners.

[1]
[http://www.academia.edu/2039409/The_Ageing_Brain_Neuroplasti...](http://www.academia.edu/2039409/The_Ageing_Brain_Neuroplasticity_and_Lifelong_Learning)

~~~
voidlogic
I do not disagree about the neuroplasticity decrease, that is a fact. I guess
I am saying that if you know the foundations (which we agree are pretty
constant) which I will call the world model, any decrease in neuroplasticity
is outweighed by the acquired skill of integrating new technologies into the
programmers established world model.

In regards to the whole neuroplasticity/cognitive decline, I think this varies
a lot by person and their environment. I know people in their 60s who are much
more agile thinkers than other I know in their 40s.

------
fghh45sdfhr3
Darkest Secret? More like an open secret. It has not yet affected me, as I am
quite old enough yet. But I have seen in in large corporations. It's bad
management, very sad, and would be almost impossible to prove in a law suit.

It's also why I will definitely try to transition to either entrepreneurship
or contracting before I hit 40.

------
henrik_w
Basically the same article (s/Silicon Valley's Dark/The Tech Industry's
Darkest/) from 2 years ago, discussed here on HN:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1641763>

------
graycat
I've never lived in a wealthy neighborhood but have always lived in at least
nice neighborhoods. In each of those neighborhoods, if look around, see that
the most common job that supports the families is being the head, often a sole
proprietor, of a small or medium business. For the point of the article, these
small business heads have a big advantage: Their age doesn't matter as long as
they can keep doing the work or at least keep doing well managing the work.

Yes, there are reports of major companies who hire Bachelor's and Master's
degree engineers and by age 35 want them into management or out the door. So,
maybe 1 in 100 stays around for a full career. So, at age 18 there is Joe and
Sam. Joe goes to college and graduate school in engineering, joins the big
company, and is out the door at age 35. Sam did some yard work in high school
and just continues. Soon he has six trucks and 12 guys working for him. He has
a house and a family, and his wife helps with scheduling, billing, and
customer service. As long as the grass keeps growing, he's okay. He's
expanding into lawn service for higher end clients, e.g., banks, medical
office campuses, etc. He's planning to expand into landscape architecture with
a plant nursery. So at age 35, Joe is out of work and Sam is doing much
better.

Sam has a neighbor Pete who is an electrician. He doesn't bother to put his
name in the Yellow Pages; he doesn't have a Web site; actually he does nothing
on publicity. But he still gets plenty of calls, has a house, family, truck,
and an apprentice. Roger got a Ph.D. in electronic engineering, worked for the
big company, got fired at age 35, and wishes he could swap his Ph.D. for an
electrician's license.

Kelly's father ran a small grocery store with two gas pumps out front. Now
Kelly runs 10 gas stations with convenience stores, has a 50' yacht, a summer
place on the water, a winter place in the mountains, and is paying full
tuition for his children at private high schools and colleges. At his yacht
club he notices a lot of small business guys like himself but nearly no
technical employees or venture funded entrepreneurs.

More generally, a career should last 40+ years. Okay, look around: What big
companies have ever provided such long lasting careers? How commonly? E.g.,
IBM? Okay, near 1994 they lost $16 billion and went from 407,000 employees
down to 205,000. A LOT of careers got ended way before 40 years. So, at IBM,
if joined in 1954 then had a chance of getting in 40 years. Much before 1954,
IBM didn't look so good. So, really, for revered IBM, really had to join in
the early 1950s -- that was about the only chance. Much the same for GM, GE,
AT&T, etc.

Lesson 1: For a 40+ year career with one big company, mostly just f'get about
it. Maybe can pull that off in K-12 teaching, college teaching if can get
tenure, or working for state or the federal government.

Lesson 2: A huge fraction of the people with stable careers for 40+ years head
their own small businesses.

Okay, for hackers and HN, we have:

Lesson 3: By age 35 or so, likely gotta be running your own business. Just
grind that into your planning. For 'information technology', maybe it can be a
great advantage. Still have to be running your own business.

Competition, how to handle competition? How do the people in the houses on the
nice streets do it? Sure, they nearly all take great advantage of a
geographical barrier to entry. Since nearly no one drives over 50 miles to see
a dentist, be one of the best dentists in a radius of 50 miles and do well.
Same for being an electrician, running a lawn service, remodeling kitchens and
baths, auto repair, auto body repair, independent insurance agent,
manufacturer's representative, etc.

So, hackers should plan to do an 'information technology' startup. If it does
as well as a successful electrician, okay. As well as a guy with 10 gas
stations and convenience stores, still better. As well as Google, terrific.
Still, can't much hope to do well just working for a salary.

Alternatives? Sure, there can be many. Maybe will get founder's stock in a
successful startup.

Still, look up and down the nice residential streets and see a lot of guys
running their own businesses. So, do much the same except use information
technology as an advantage.

For the article, it goes on and on about the 'reasons' a guy 50 can't get a
job programming -- he asks for too much money, his skills are out of date,
etc. The "too much money" is no reason to be unemployable; the fact is, he
won't be hired at anything much above minimum wage. Skills? His 'skills' may
be far superior, and for being 'up to date' with the latest version of some
language, that's as easy or easier for an experienced guy than a young guy.

But there is another reason: The supervisor is supposed to be older, and the
subordinate, younger. So, a guy 50 has to work for a guy 60 and can't work for
a guy 40.

There's just no way out of it: In the US, big corporations as sources of
careers are going away -- have heavily gone away. Maybe if the US would get
back on its feet, e.g., quit being so happy about creating economic booms in
distant countries, big companies could be stable enough to provide good, long
term employment. Maybe. So, right, notice that one of the keys is to have a
good geographical barrier to entry, that is, no competition from distant
countries. So, basically the US is losing out on competing around the world so
that what's left are lots of small businesses each of which serves customers
in a radius of about 50 miles. Sad situation.

There is another observation: Supposedly the 1-2 wealthiest areas in the US
are Silicon Valley and Greenwich, CT (with the hedge funds). Well, third is
within about 60 miles of the Washington Monument. Because the Federal Civil
Service pays so well? Yes, but only indirectly. The guys with the really nice
houses in the best neighborhoods in that area mostly are not working for the
Federal Government. Instead they are running small businesses where the
customers are the Federal Government or are working for the Federal
Government. E.g., a dentist can do well because the millions of people there
working for the Federal Government aren't rich but are relatively well off and
can afford to pay for a dentist. So, if want to run your own small business,
then maybe pick one of those three areas. E.g., in Silicon Valley, to heck
with venture capital and information technology and, instead, be an
electrician who installs fantastic underwater lighting in swimming pools of
successful information technology entrepreneurs. Or run a red sauce Italian
restaurant, say, near Gaithersburg, MD.

------
eeeeaaii
I hear this over and over again and I wonder why nobody frames this as a
generational thing. The Apple II came out in 1977. I'm 41 now, so back then I
was 8, still learning how to think, how to process the world. I wrote my first
computer program in 6th grade -- I grew up with computers. But somebody who is
51 now was 18 when the Apple II came out, already well into their teenage
years, and probably already thinking about what they wanted to do with their
life. Unless their parents were scientists or researchers there was very
little chance they had ever seen or laid hands on a computer.

One thing I fear is that there's a rise and fall to this. In other words, the
fear is that younger generations are just not as interested in computers
anymore... in other words, the past 20-30 years or so has been a "golden age"
for computers that is slowly coming to an end. Data bears this out:
[http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/03/21/computer_sci...](http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/03/21/computer_science_major_sees_en.aspx)

Let's look at popular music. Baby boomers grew up listening to records and the
radio, and in their run they made some amazing music. It was an exciting time
to be in a band, everyone was doing it, and some really great music was made.
Back then, they said "if it's too loud, you're too old." Everybody talked
about youth then.

What happened? People kept on believing that rock and roll was for the young,
and there were more and more ways to access music and the technology for
making music got better and better, but the reality was that the music itself
just got worse and worse. The moment was over -- the Vietnam war, the sexual
revolution and womens’ movement, the civil rights movement -- it was all in
the past, and kids in the 80's, 90's etc. just had nothing to write songs
about anymore, and (very much generalizing here) nobody practiced their
instruments anymore because -- why? It was all about getting that record deal
and getting famous. The more you unpack it, the more dismal it appears. Those
great hits you remember from the 80's, 90's, etc? Look more deeply into it and
you'll find in many, many cases there were baby boomers advising, producing,
writing, performing -- basically still running the show. These days, popular
music is a shell of its former self. Which isn't to say that there's isn't
good music being made. But the quantity and the quality of the music just
isn't what it was.

There have been plenty of other "golden ages" throughout history, in the arts,
philosophy, literature, architecture, etc, etc. It's reasonable to assume that
there will continue to be “golden ages” with regard to more modern pursuits,
such as rock music and computer programming. Who knows how long programming’s
first “golden age” will last? Maybe it’s just getting started, maybe it's
coming to an end, or maybe it’s already ended. Regardless though, it's
probably safe to say that someone who is currently in their 50's pre-dates
programming’s first "golden age" and probably doesn't parse the world the same
way as somebody who grew up in the thick of things. Which doesn’t actually
mean that someone in their 50’s can’t be a good programmer, by the way, it’s a
generalization, not an absolute.

These days, when I come on hacker news and I see another yet another article
about a completely boring social-media who-cares php-based startup with kids
at the helm, when I see how weak Facebook is as a technical platform (28 year
old CEO) especially when compared with Google (40 year old CEO), when I see
how much kids these days rely on bolting shit together and copying and pasting
code without even knowing how that stuff works, it makes me fear for
programming. Again, I’m generalizing, there are plenty of good programmers
under 25, and plenty of good programmers over 40, please don’t take offense if
you’re outside of that age range. My worry is not that good, young programmers
don’t exist, my worry is that their numbers are decreasing.

~~~
Someone
Minor correction: 51 year olds were 15 when the Apple ][ came out, not 18.

And they had seen computers, just not personal computers. Exhibits showing
line printers printing ASCII (or, more likely, EBCDIC) art were fairly common
views. Any technically inclined kid in a rich country would have seen one
(touching is something else)

Also, I don't think we have fewer good low-level programmers; they just get
lost in a sea of glue-blocks-together experts (that, by the way, has its
place, too)

------
desperadoi
cannot agree more

------
OGinparadise
Shut up you old programmers with families and tendencies to questions 80 hour
weeks in 15 year old 'startups' with tens of billions in revenue. Or
Zuckenberg, Larry Page and others will replace you with fresh of the boat
young immigrants...because "we don't have enough engineers." Or something like
that [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/11/mark-
zuckerberg-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/11/mark-zuckerberg-
launches-immigration-group)

------
michaelochurch
Here's my stance on the problem. Most people here have heard of the MacLeod
hierarchy (Losers, Clueless, Sociopaths). The VC-istan cult is about
Cluelessness. (The MacLeod Sociopaths are the investors and executive implants
who live outside companies and, smartly, get to diversify.) The whole
ecosystem is built up around extracting value from young, white men who have a
high proclivity toward Cluelessness.

When you're in school, deadlines are well-tested because everyone's doing
approximately the same work. Unless you have a health crisis or death in the
family, you don't have an excuse for a late assignment and the typical 10%/day
policy is more than generous. When you're at work, though, 90% of "deadlines"
are just someone's opinion and a good 50% are impossible. VC-istan is about
exploiting young kids who haven't learned that yet and who would rather stay
at work till 3:45 am than miss a "deadline" set by some VP with Shit's Easy
Syndrome. See: [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-
legali...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-
marijuana.html)

The older programmers _are_ really good at what they do, and they're a lot
more flexible than the stereotype gives them credit for. The problem, however,
is that they're a threat to the cult. Bring someone on board who does his best
work between 8 and 11 (when the kids are just starting to roll in) and goes
home at 5:30, ignores the deadlines that don't actually matter (i.e. the ones
set by egotistical bosses, not hard deadlines that must be met if at all
possible) and suddenly there's a breakdown of the Cluelessness. Couple this
also with the Dunning-Kruger effect in reverse; the Clueless young people
don't see that the older guy is 4x more efficient than they are (because
they're inefficient and don't know it, cf. D-K). All they see is a guy putting
in significantly fewer hours. Either the young Clueless will see him as a
piker for his shorter work hours, or as a badass for his high effectiveness
(making him a legitimacy threat, as the younger engineers see him as the real
alpha).

I would also add that there's a culture of extremely harsh age-grading. VC-
istan is most concentrated in high-COL areas where you can't raise a family on
a (non-financial) programmer's salary; at two you can do it, but two career
jobs, plus kids, necessitates maids and daycare and that's expensive and
complicated, too. Because the only way to own a house in these cities is to
become an executive or financier, you have a lot of 22-year-olds who see
themselves being executives-who-code in 5 (!) years-- having managerial
control of the division of labor and using it to give themselves the fun
stuff, but being full-time programmers-- never mind the fact that that's
extremely impractical in almost every organization. Very rarely do executives
spend less than 20 hours per week in meetings. A 40-year-old who's been around
the block and still programs might tell them as much. That's a problem. To
counteract this, the 35-year-old VCs and 30-year-old founders discredit the
40-year-old programmers as "bitter" and he reacts by leaving, just after the
one-year cliff so as to take a couple lottery tickets out the door with him
because, well, strange things happen.

The short way to say this is that older programmers aren't the problem. The
issue is that most of these formulaic startups are founded on exploiting young
talent that overestimates the career value of low-end engineering work
(because these people don't have the experience to tell what quality work is)
and most older people can see through the bullshit. That's dangerous, insofar
as it represents the threat of the _younger_ Clueless engineers also learning
to see.

~~~
lsc
The problem with families is a real one. If you choose to have a family, well,
you are going to have a lot less time and energy to put into your career. It's
as bad as a MMPOG addiction; worse, probably, most people don't have the guts
to ask for time off for a raid.

But, I don't think that has a lot to do with what we see as age
discrimination; It does give the young kids a boost, but most people start
families in their mid to late '20s, and even in the computer industry, that's
young. By the time you are hitting 50 and seeing real age discrimination? your
kids are almost taking care of themselves. (or, at least, they are leeching
money, not time.)

~~~
michaelochurch
In VC-istan and on Wall Street, you see age discrimination sooner. Then again,
that may have to do with extreme costs of living and mediocre quality of life
pushing a lot of people out as they get into their family-building years. But
my observation has been that age discrimination _starts_ in the late 20s,
although it doesn't become a show-stopper (only an annoyance) till much later.

It's not about absolute age. It's about harsh age grading. If you're 37 and
VP/Eng, you're fine. If you haven't held a management position by that age, it
starts to raise questions (even if you have no desire to manage). Hell, even
at 26 you're out of the running for analyst-level positions in banking; you
better have something that shows you're associate-level (a graduate degree or
strong technical accomplishments).

I'm 29 and already experiencing age discrimination. I'm losing callbacks
because I have "too many jobs" (which is basically a legal, back-door age
discrimination although it's about the cynicism and "disruptive" expertise
that come with "job hopping", not chronological years). Now, any place that
has that attitude is a shitty place to work, but sometimes shitty jobs are
useful and it's a loss (not a major one, but it affects leverage and financial
planning) not to have them as options.

~~~
lsc
>I'm 29 and already experiencing age discrimination. I'm losing callbacks
because I have "too many jobs" (which is basically a legal, back-door age
discrimination although it's about the cynicism and "disruptive" expertise
that come with "job hopping", not chronological years)

well, to the best of my knowledge, at twenty nine, you are not in a protected
class. the age protected class is 45 and up, I believe.

I'm skeptical of this idea that you face age discrimination before 30. It
doesn't line up with any of the statistical data, and it certainly doesn't
line up with any of my anecdotal data. (I'm older than you are, but not by a
whole lot.) I mean, I could be wrong, of course, but that's below the median
age, most places I've worked. (I mean, if you are talking specifically about
web-startups that are still in the startup phase, then that's old. but that's
a pretty small percentage of the job market. It takes a whole lot of web
startups to make one yahoo in terms of number of engineering jobs. And
generally speaking, the startups pay shit, so they get young workers trying to
get their foot in the door, young workers who move up and out to the larger
companies that pay more.)

Maybe you just have higher standards than I do? I mean, I thought getting paid
six figures as a unix janitor in an area where that salary means I live in a
condo (or buy during the downturns; the median santa clara county single
family home last year was two hundred thousand dollars cheaper than the median
single family home this year. Last year, median was a reasonable half-
million.) means I'm doing pretty good. I mean, yeah, if you want to make
millions of dollars a year, you are going to be on something of an accelerated
schedule.

On the other hand, I haven't seriously tried to get a full-time job working
for someone else for several years now, so maybe I'm just not seeing it.

~~~
danbmil99
> the age protected class is 45 and up

I'm in an "age protected class"? Quick, I need to get hired, fired, and hire a
lawyer.

~~~
lsc
meh, my grammar... is poor today. Also, apparently, it's 40, not 45.

[http://finduslaw.com/age-discrimination-employment-
act-1967-...](http://finduslaw.com/age-discrimination-employment-
act-1967-adea-29-us-code-chapter-14)

