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

We Hire Old People

relevantdb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 303 posts

Re: We Hire Old People

#91

Post by foobarian »

gonehome wrote: post #61
ccleve wrote: post #30

I wrote the ad. Holy cow, I didn't expect to be #1 on Hacker News. Will answer any questions. Here's one you might ask: Why? I'm pushing 60 and I've attempted to interview for developer jobs over the last year. Got nowhere despite 40 years of experience. Getting really, really tired of this industry's attitude toward people like me. Based on questions below, I'll give a bit more. Earlier this year I had a personal re…

I've also thought this would be an interesting approach, even explicitly. The laws on age discrimination are about discriminating against old people, but not about discriminating against young people. If age discrimination is real, that means that people are not valuing older people properly - they're undervaluing them. You could have roles that are explicitly only hiring people 40+ and that restriction would be lega…

How awkward would it be to have the 35+ requirement be outlawed. Would certainly be interesting to read those legal arguments.

Edit: I meant 35+ not 40+. Updated.

Re: We Hire Old People

#92

Post by foldr »

ipaddr wrote: post #36
gravypod wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is discrimination immediately evident. I think there are legal implications in actively soliciting contract work from people who currently work at other companies under full time contracts that may preclude them from doing stuff like that (ex: FAANG).

I don't think that is true. Any agreement you have with google/faang is your agreement and your punishment. You cannot bind others into the agreement. They face no legal implications.

The issue would be with IP. Facebook might be able to claim that the code your contractor worked on for you actually belongs to them.

Re: We Hire Old People

#93

Post by marcosdumay »

gonehome wrote: post #61
ccleve wrote: post #30

I wrote the ad. Holy cow, I didn't expect to be #1 on Hacker News. Will answer any questions. Here's one you might ask: Why? I'm pushing 60 and I've attempted to interview for developer jobs over the last year. Got nowhere despite 40 years of experience. Getting really, really tired of this industry's attitude toward people like me. Based on questions below, I'll give a bit more. Earlier this year I had a personal re…

I've also thought this would be an interesting approach, even explicitly. The laws on age discrimination are about discriminating against old people, but not about discriminating against young people. If age discrimination is real, that means that people are not valuing older people properly - they're undervaluing them. You could have roles that are explicitly only hiring people 40+ and that restriction would be lega…

If the entire market is discriminating against old people, you don't need any discrimination to fill those roles with them. You just need to ignore age and filter for competence.

Re: We Hire Old People

#94

Post by Alex3917 »

gonehome wrote: post #61
ccleve wrote: post #30

I wrote the ad. Holy cow, I didn't expect to be #1 on Hacker News. Will answer any questions. Here's one you might ask: Why? I'm pushing 60 and I've attempted to interview for developer jobs over the last year. Got nowhere despite 40 years of experience. Getting really, really tired of this industry's attitude toward people like me. Based on questions below, I'll give a bit more. Earlier this year I had a personal re…

I've also thought this would be an interesting approach, even explicitly. The laws on age discrimination are about discriminating against old people, but not about discriminating against young people. If age discrimination is real, that means that people are not valuing older people properly - they're undervaluing them. You could have roles that are explicitly only hiring people 40+ and that restriction would be lega…

> If age discrimination is real, that means that people are not valuing older people properly - they're undervaluing them

While age discrimination is certainly real, I think it's also conflated with the fact that there just isn't a lot of demand for people who are good at their jobs in general.

I'd liken it to how, if you take up baking, then on pretty much your first try you can make a pie that's better than the pie from almost every commercial bakery. The reason for that isn't because home bakers have more knowledge of baking techniques than professional bakers -- they don't, not by a long shot. It's because if only 1 in 100 people is willing to actually pay enough to make it profitable to make properly made baked good, then there just aren't many situations where you can build a business around doing that.

In other words, older people might not be less employable in spite of the fact that they're better at their jobs, but because they're better at their jobs.

Re: We Hire Old People

#95

Post by kube-system »

gravypod wrote: post #4

> The hiring process is in the form of a paid, short-term consulting gig that will lead to a full-time offer if we like you and you like us. We'll give you some tasks, you'll get them done, and then we'll talk. No need to quit your day job to do this gig; we'll work around your schedule. Interesting. I look forward to hearing if this works out long term. I'd be worried about legal implications of something like this…

Non-competes, anti-moonlighting clauses, and contract employment are all quite common and have been for a long time. The "legal implication" is that you read the contracts and follow it or work around it. Most corporate/employment lawyers, HR teams, or hiring managers should be fairly familiar with these situations.

Also, the demands listed in employment agreements are not always legally enforceable, or not legally enforceable in as broad of a way that they appear to be phrased.

Re: We Hire Old People

#96

Post by anoplus »

Other than "old" engineers which could obviously be valuable - I think having everyone finding their place in society is a great vision to have. Makes me happier seeing old, or even disabled people fulfill themselves

Re: We Hire Old People

#97

Post by regulation_d »

ipaddr wrote: post #36
gravypod wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is discrimination immediately evident. I think there are legal implications in actively soliciting contract work from people who currently work at other companies under full time contracts that may preclude them from doing stuff like that (ex: FAANG).

I don't think that is true. Any agreement you have with google/faang is your agreement and your punishment. You cannot bind others into the agreement. They face no legal implications.

For the most part, this is correct. One exception is "tortious interference with a contract". Let's say I work full-time for Company A, and in my employment agreement, I agree not to do any work on the side. Then let's say Company B knows that I work for Company A and knows that I am contractually prohibited from working for them. If Company B induces me to breach my employment agreement with Company A, Company A can often sue them under the "tortious interference with a contract" cause of action.

For most US jurisdictions, intent is required on the part of the obstructing party, but in a minority of jurisdictions, negligence is enough.

I suspect this is why there's a clause in most employment agreements that I've signed, where the employee has to represent that they are free to enter into the agreement.

Re: We Hire Old People

#98

Post by kbenson »

yupper32 wrote: post #55

Why do I feel uncomfortable with this listing? Maybe it's because I'm a 20 something dev in Silicon Valley? Maybe it's because I don't trust anyone who calls themselves experts in anything? Maybe it's because I work with plenty of "older" devs in Silicon Valley? Or that I think the two-jobs-at-once hiring process is horrible? I probably shouldn't feel uncomfortable with it, but I do. I guess the ad isn't for me, thou…

> Maybe it's because I'm a 20 something dev in Silicon Valley?

So, you don't like competing with older people? They say they hire young people too, so I'm not sure why else your age would have any bearing.

> Maybe it's because I don't trust anyone who calls themselves experts in anything?

Some people or organizations really are though. They exist. Google are experts on search. I don't think anyone could support an argument against that adequately.

> Maybe it's because I work with plenty of "older" devs in Silicon Valley?

How old? The author of the post chimed in above, and they're close to 60. Is that about what you were expecting, or quite a bit older?

> Or that I think the two-jobs-at-once hiring process is horrible?

That's not a requirement, that's a relaxation of a requirement that allows more people to try out. Think the person working a non-tech job or working a current consulting gig that will end soon as well as those looking to switch from a current full time employment. As long as those people don't have legal requirements requiring they don't work elsewhere, I'm not sure what's the problem with letting people manage their own time for this stage.

Re: We Hire Old People

#99

Post by TheDong »

foobarian wrote: post #91
gonehome wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also thought this would be an interesting approach, even explicitly. The laws on age discrimination are about discriminating against old people, but not about discriminating against young people. If age discrimination is real, that means that people are not valuing older people properly - they're undervaluing them. You could have roles that are explicitly only hiring people 40+ and that restriction would be lega…

How awkward would it be to have the 35+ requirement be outlawed. Would certainly be interesting to read those legal arguments. Edit: I meant 35+ not 40+. Updated.

It would be quite tricky to outlaw.

It's perfectly legal to have "years of experience" requirement, so for example you could have a requirement of: "Communication with spoken language is a valuable part of the job. We require all applicants to have 35+ years of experience speaking one or more languages".

That's practically a requirement that you're 40/45+ without ever mentioning age.

Re: We Hire Old People

#100

Post by ido »

cmiles74 wrote: post #66
maerF0x0 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what you attribute the ageism towards? I wonder what actual or perceived traits trend with age that hiring managers are trying to avoid? I'll venture one idea-- Once you have enough experience you start to be able to see the emperor has no clothes situations. Not being naively positive about everything can be interpreted as being overly negative (at least in the bay area). Funny enough it might just be the "…

When I'm feeling generous, I would guess the company doesn't want to spend the money required to compensate people with that level of experience.

As a 38 years old who has worked as a software developer since age 18...I'd say software developer salaries really plateau long before you're 60. You make "senior" after about 5-10 years of job experience, and not everyone makes principal or director (or CTO).
Post reply on HN