Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Ageism Never Gets Old

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 272 posts

Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old

#31

Post by Harvey-Specter »

Swinx43 wrote: post #7
jeremyjh wrote: post #3

> In the nineteen-twenties, an engineer’s “half life of knowledge”—the time it took for half of his expertise to become obsolete—was thirty-five years. In the nineteen-sixties, it was a decade. Now it’s five years at most, and, for a software engineer, less than three. This sort of mythology is NOT helping. An experienced Software Engineer has valuable skills that do not age at all. Yes there are new languages and fr…

This mythology leads directly to horribly created software that will either ensure many terrible security breaches in the future or the continued proliferation of "magic" throughout a product. One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types. an engineer in any other proper engineering discipline does not become worthless with age, their experience actually counts for something. Somehow…

> One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types

In Canada the term 'engineer' is regulated at the provincial level, and a person can be prosecuted for labeling themselves as an engineer if they are not registered and licensed with their province's engineering association. For example in Ontario in order to join Professional Engineers Ontario and call yourself an engineer you must meet strict academic and work experience requirements[1], pass an ethics exam, and pay a yearly membership fee. Everyone who graduates from an accredited engineering program in Canada has to take an ethics course and has these rules drilled into their heads. I know I did.

But then I graduated and half the people I run in to at hackathons and conferences did a two week bootcamp and have "Software Engineer" in their job title, and proudly introduce themselves as such.

I call myself a software developer because although I have a software engineering degree I'm not registered with the PEO and it wouldn't benefit me if I was.

[1] http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php?ci_id=1848&la_id=1

Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old

#32

Post by ddorian43 »

nonamechicken wrote: post #30
amelius wrote: post #4

I always love to hear about cultures where old people are the most respected of a society. I think such cultures are happier, because they ensure that the future looks bright, no matter how old someone is. But ... such cultures might be in conflict with the information society we have built.

I wish this was true in India. In India, we love to parade around saying respect our elders. But when it comes to Indian IT companies, it literally is a pyramid. I used to and still wonder where does all the 10+ year experienced guys go. In almost every team I have been, its predominantly freshers. In India, once you have 8+ years, I have heard the number of calls one get from recruiters is far less. And if you are n…

Maybe they have too many people ?

Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old

#33

Post by dogruck »

zaarn wrote: post #5
amelius wrote: post #4

I always love to hear about cultures where old people are the most respected of a society. I think such cultures are happier, because they ensure that the future looks bright, no matter how old someone is. But ... such cultures might be in conflict with the information society we have built.

Not really. Ageism seems largely concentrated on the Silicon-Valley style society. As far as I am concerned, ageism does not exist at my workplace. Old engineers, even software engineers are looked for because they bring possibly valueable experience. The simple truth is that ageism is a result of not valuing the lessons of an experienced engineer because they're not up-to-date enough.

Setting ageism aside (which is certainly real), perhaps it’s also related to what the company is optimizing for.

For example, it’s now clear that companies like Twitter only optimized for number of supposed real users.

I’m sure they had no appetite for to hear lessons from an experienced engineer.

“Hey, what if this platform becomes a cesspool — a potent vector for hate and fraud, infested with fake accounts?”

“Shut up, we’ll solve that problem later, after we get big fast, assuming the world still exists.”

Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old

#34

Post by moduspol »

Swinx43 wrote: post #7
jeremyjh wrote: post #3

> In the nineteen-twenties, an engineer’s “half life of knowledge”—the time it took for half of his expertise to become obsolete—was thirty-five years. In the nineteen-sixties, it was a decade. Now it’s five years at most, and, for a software engineer, less than three. This sort of mythology is NOT helping. An experienced Software Engineer has valuable skills that do not age at all. Yes there are new languages and fr…

This mythology leads directly to horribly created software that will either ensure many terrible security breaches in the future or the continued proliferation of "magic" throughout a product. One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types. an engineer in any other proper engineering discipline does not become worthless with age, their experience actually counts for something. Somehow…

I don't think it's ageism if one person is selected based on being willing to work more for less money. That's just a labor market.

There's an argument to be made that 20-somethings shouldn't work more than 40 hours a week or should require higher pay. Or that employers should place more value on the work of more experienced developers. Or both.

But I don't think experienced developers should be exempt from keeping what they're bringing competitive with less experienced ones. That's a market--which is reality.

Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old

#35

Post by Nursie »

ryandrake wrote: post #26
Nursie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked in C, embedded and server-side, for about 15 years of my 17 year career. Companies I've worked with recently are having trouble finding C-capable developers, particularly C developers who have the first clue about 'modern' developments like CI and CD, or git. C is a language invented in the 70s. If you kept up with thread APIS when they became usable in the late 90s you could quite easily have had a 40 ye…

> Companies I've worked with recently are having trouble finding C-capable developers, particularly C developers who have the first clue about 'modern' developments like CI and CD, or git. As is always the case when a claim is made about "companies having trouble finding developers" of some sort: Are they actually having trouble finding developers despite offering top-of-market salary, remote work and gold plated ben…

Honestly I don't know, I'm a contractor and the place I'm just finishing with now is having trouble. The pay on offer for permanent staff here could well be terrible. The work certainly is, which is why I'm moving on.

I tend to agree with your viewpoint, particularly when it comes to arguments about the need to mass-import developers from overseas. Are you struggling to recruit due to a genuine shortage? Or are you trying to get people with good experience to work for you for £30K pa?

Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old

#36

Post by wyager »

Swinx43 wrote: post #7
jeremyjh wrote: post #3

> In the nineteen-twenties, an engineer’s “half life of knowledge”—the time it took for half of his expertise to become obsolete—was thirty-five years. In the nineteen-sixties, it was a decade. Now it’s five years at most, and, for a software engineer, less than three. This sort of mythology is NOT helping. An experienced Software Engineer has valuable skills that do not age at all. Yes there are new languages and fr…

This mythology leads directly to horribly created software that will either ensure many terrible security breaches in the future or the continued proliferation of "magic" throughout a product. One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types. an engineer in any other proper engineering discipline does not become worthless with age, their experience actually counts for something. Somehow…

> One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types.

The problem you’re actually describing is completely orthogonal to whether someone is a “brogrammer”. The actual issue is that most programmers learn neither computer engineering nor computer science. Businesses are typically very high time preference, so they don’t care and are willing to hire people who “know how to code” and that’s basically the extent of their knowledge.

Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old

#37

Post by Nursie »

BatFastard wrote: post #22
Nursie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked in C, embedded and server-side, for about 15 years of my 17 year career. Companies I've worked with recently are having trouble finding C-capable developers, particularly C developers who have the first clue about 'modern' developments like CI and CD, or git. C is a language invented in the 70s. If you kept up with thread APIS when they became usable in the late 90s you could quite easily have had a 40 ye…

Such as?

Honestly? I've had more fun coding Java (8) and Python lately, for server-side stuff. I'd also like to get paid to do some Rust and/or Go at some point.

It's all subjective, of course, and partly I'm just bored of doing the same thing for so long.

Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old

#38

Post by ryandrake »

Nursie wrote: post #35
ryandrake wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies I've worked with recently are having trouble finding C-capable developers, particularly C developers who have the first clue about 'modern' developments like CI and CD, or git. As is always the case when a claim is made about "companies having trouble finding developers" of some sort: Are they actually having trouble finding developers despite offering top-of-market salary, remote work and gold plated ben…

Honestly I don't know, I'm a contractor and the place I'm just finishing with now is having trouble. The pay on offer for permanent staff here could well be terrible. The work certainly is, which is why I'm moving on. I tend to agree with your viewpoint, particularly when it comes to arguments about the need to mass-import developers from overseas. Are you struggling to recruit due to a genuine shortage? Or are you t…

Yup--my guess is that most companies complaining about a shortage of talent can be addressed with: "Well, you offer terrible work and/or terrible pay. What do you expect?"

Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old

#39

Post by vonmoltke »

Harvey-Specter wrote: post #31
Swinx43 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This mythology leads directly to horribly created software that will either ensure many terrible security breaches in the future or the continued proliferation of "magic" throughout a product. One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types. an engineer in any other proper engineering discipline does not become worthless with age, their experience actually counts for something. Somehow…

> One of the issues is using the word "engineer" for any of the brogrammer types In Canada the term 'engineer' is regulated at the provincial level, and a person can be prosecuted for labeling themselves as an engineer if they are not registered and licensed with their province's engineering association. For example in Ontario in order to join Professional Engineers Ontario and call yourself an engineer you must meet…

Canada, along with a couple other nations I do not recall, is an outlier in this respect. As an American EE degree holder who has been employed as an EE in the past, I think the attachment of "engineer" to shitloads of titles just to fluff them up is ridiculous. However, I think the Canadian position is equally ridiculous in the opposite direction.

Re: Why Ageism Never Gets Old

#40

Post by zaarn »

dogruck wrote: post #33
zaarn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Ageism seems largely concentrated on the Silicon-Valley style society. As far as I am concerned, ageism does not exist at my workplace. Old engineers, even software engineers are looked for because they bring possibly valueable experience. The simple truth is that ageism is a result of not valuing the lessons of an experienced engineer because they're not up-to-date enough.

Setting ageism aside (which is certainly real), perhaps it’s also related to what the company is optimizing for. For example, it’s now clear that companies like Twitter only optimized for number of supposed real users. I’m sure they had no appetite for to hear lessons from an experienced engineer. “Hey, what if this platform becomes a cesspool — a potent vector for hate and fraud, infested with fake accounts?” “Shut…

That is certainly also part of the SV "Get big get rich" mentality.

Some corporations certainly do value building a safe and sound baseline of quality to stand on where they can service customers reliably and to utmost satisfaction.

Post reply on HN