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

211–220 of 303 posts

Re: We Hire Old People

#211

Post by webmaven »

soneca wrote: post #59
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…

Thanks, appreciate qualifying a bit what is considered “old”. I am 41, but only 4 years of software development experience. So only applied for junior positions yet. I don’t think I faced ageism applying to jobs, but I rarely applied to SV jobs (I am not from the US). What do you think is the reasoning people having ageist behavior use to convince themselves they are not bad people? That old people won’t learn, or wo…

You're assuming that the bias is overt and conscious. It doesn't have to be, any more than sexism, racism, or classism do.

One looming issue for small orgs is a worry that an older employee will drive up the cost of the company health plan.

Re: We Hire Old People

#212

Post by freeopinion »

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.

Are you referring to the constitutional requirement for USA presidential candidates?

Re: We Hire Old People

#213

Post by UncleOxidant »

herval wrote: post #162
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may all be true, but (at least some) older people have more to extract.

Yes and no - more experienced people have more to _impart_, because they've been there, generally know what to focus on, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean they're eager to just put up with anything or just "play along" most cultures, and IMO that's key to a lot of the disguised ageism in the industry. With experience, you also you bring along your own set of practices and habits accrued through the years, which _may…

I'll go a little further and say that more experienced engineers are just not as likely to put up with bullshit. If you've been in the industry long enough you've seen plenty of it from management, marketing, charismatic startup CEOs, etc. You've seen it lead to death marches, dangerous products, wasted effort, burnout. And you're just more likely to call it out and/or object. Most company cultures just don't like that - they want everyone to play along and pretend there's no problem with the plan from on high. They like the NCGs because they're very unlikely to object (in addition to being willing to work for a lot less).

Re: We Hire Old People

#214

Post by gorbachev »

zarkov99 wrote: post #54

As what some would call an old person (~50), I love this. There is so much knowledge in old workers. Not all is relevant, sure, but there is so much that is timeless stuff that every young Engineer will learn, sooner or later, though varying degrees of suffering. If we could put away arrogance (from both young and old) we could do so much to advance the field.

The thing that gets me is the cookie cutter interviewing approach a lot of places do. They ask about specifics, but that's not what is the really valuable stuff.

As an example I've worked with so, so many web frameworks over the years, even created one or two of my own (small, limited functionality things). Most of them nobody uses any more, because newer frameworks are just better.

But I bet the majority of recruiters see "Web Framework X, 1995" in my resume and think...wow, how outdated is this guy...what they don't seem to realize is that with some exceptions and advancements in technology, they all do the same things, even now. The issues you run into are mostly the same or so similar it's easy the spot the pattern, if you've got the experience I have. This is the same for any problem area for any experienced developer.

That is very, very hard to convey in most interviews.

What I do not have is skills to develop an implementation of a randomly selected algorithm in 20 minutes on the spot, because the last time I even saw it mentioned was 35 years ago, and even then I probably used a well tested library for it. Ask me about why you'd want to use that algorithm, or why I'd choose it over another one...that I could answer.

Re: We Hire Old People

#215

Post by Spoom »

dharmab wrote: post #28
ebiester wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Principals, in this context, means people applying directly, rather than recruiters on their behalf.

I interpreted it as "Principal level engineers only". Clarification would be helpful.

To contrast, I've seen this often enough that I knew immediately that they meant, don't try to send us blinded candidates and claim a finder's fee.

But perhaps just adding ", no recruiters" would be enough to clarify.

Re: We Hire Old People

#216

Post by pengaru »

irrational wrote: post #182
pengaru wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That may all be true, but (at least some) older people have more to extract. Not when multiplied by number of hours foolishly spent on employer interests while caught up in the competitive frenzy with effectively zero other obligations.

I have far fewer obligations in my 50s than I did in my 30s. Kids are gone, I’m happily married and not in the dating scene, I am settled in a home. Other than work and hanging out with my wife, I don’t have anything else going on. But back when I was dating and then had young kids and then even older kids (with all of their activities) I had a ton more obligations outside of work. It started going down in my mid 40s…

Allow me to count the number of over 50 year olds I crossed paths with while burning the midnight oil Getting Shit Done crunching at the office...

The only time those offices had lights on after hours were when the cleaning people occupied them.

My assumption has been even after the nest empties these folks have better things to do like relaxing in their preferred home(s), eating their preferred meals, sleeping in their preferred bed, all accompanied by their preferred people. They have substantial obligations to self, and feel entitled to that having put in their time in years past.

Young people suck at setting boundaries let alone enforcing them. Older people generally take better care of themselves and don't fall for the infantilizing exploits of "startup culture".

Re: We Hire Old People

#217

Post by OldHand2018 »

greenyoda wrote: post #152
kodah wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Ironically, in the early 2000's it was the opposite. Something did change though because I've seen the problem you're talking about. One thing could be companies, recruiters, or…

> One thing could be companies, recruiters, or manager looking for CS or CE degree specifically. Someone who is 60 outdates CS and CE. I'm that old, and I have an undergrad CS degree. CS degrees were already common in the early 1980s.

It appears that undergrad CS degrees were a thing by the early 1970s:

> 1973 Two-hundred B.S. degrees awarded

[1] https://www.cs.purdue.edu/history/table1.html

PS - Purdue is the oldest CS department in the US, though perhaps another university started an undergrad program earlier?

Re: We Hire Old People

#218

Post by gravypod »

sokoloff wrote: post #39
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).

Why can’t I solicit work from all comers, trusting that they have the responsibility to ensure that they aren’t violating any contract that they’ve agreed to (without my knowledge)?

If you are asking: "Why can't I solicit XYZ from all comers, trusting that they have the responsibility to ensure that they aren't violating any contract"

We can look at: Louis Rossmann soliciting firmware, tools, schematics, and parts from people. He's started that he feels he is, at best, in a legal grey area. At worst, he's paying people to exfiltrate intellectual property and trade secrets from Apple.

Moonlighting can look like industrial espionage if you squint really hard.

Re: We Hire Old People

#219

Post by nly »

bequanna wrote: post #175
city41 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it inflated expectations, or do younger people not always understand what they are worth? I suspect it's probably somewhere in between the two.

It’s all relative and you are correct. We get much more “value” when we choose a less experienced candidate who wants much less money, but it is a gamble. Are they trainable? Will they stick around? But I prefer that gamble to the one where we pay someone more money who has no discernible skill edge over other candidates. Actually, I don’t understand the upside to that gamble at all, which is why I never take it. Sho…

I think this is the game as well. Companies want to minimize risk for new hires, so would rather hire someone at $X and get 2-3 years out of them than hire someone at $2X and hope they get twice the value out of them before they retire or call time on their bullshit.

A small % of new hires (in their 20s and 30s) will stick around for >10 years, and the value you get then from years of incremental pay raises is huge. Those people are comfortable and don't know their market value or are too afraid to go and get it.

Re: We Hire Old People

#220

Post by gravypod »

ryneandal wrote: post #70
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…

The fact that offering gig work to FT employees could have legal repercussions sounds off alarm bells about the US's unhealthy attitude towards employees. It's unfathomable to me that corporations can have so much power over one's time outside of work.

(Opinions are my own, not my employer's)

> It's unfathomable to me that corporations can have so much power over one's time outside of work.

I think this, and the general brain-drain from the broader industry, is really holding the tech sector back. So much OSS could be written if contracts weren't abusive in this way.

Post reply on HN