Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

techcrunch.com

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

#51
post #42
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the single people can take more risk thing is a ridiculous trope that assumes marriage situations that are rare today (single income couple). A dual income married couple can tolerate more risk than a single person, for obvious reasons.

As someone in a 14 year DINK relationship, I totally disagree with this. When you are in a relationship, decisions need to be collaborative - you can't just chase any opportunity that comes along without thinking about how it will affect your partner. Also, when I was single, I could spend the vast majority of my time working. In a relationship, not only CAN'T I do that (my partner would kill me), but I don't want to…

Even single people should be thinking through high risk decisions, so I don't really see your point there. A dual income couple has inherently more ability to make higher-risk decisions that have larger expected returns.

As for time spent working, I'm a bit skeptical of that. It's not like single people don't have socialization needs that need to be met. My single friends spend a lot of time and effort on dating and trying to arrange opportunities to see friends.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

#52
post #26

There is something I frankly don't understand. Why would anyone discriminate against older, more experienced engineers? Tech companies are spending millions of dollars on their offices and employee-perks to attract and retain talent and yet they discriminate against the category of people who has the most experience? It just boggles my mind. I have a very limited perspective, but come from a country where the ageism…

It's quite simple: a young and single engineer will cost less and work more. An older and married (or with kids) engineer will cost more and work less.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

#53

I'm not "young" anymore and not "old" yet, but I'm quite saddened by this point of view: 'The young understand new technologies better than the old do, and are like a clean slate: they will rapidly learn the latest coding methods and techniques, and they don’t carry any “technology baggage”'. Software business seems mostly about exploitation of the naivety of the youngsters and less about software and programming.

>Software business seems mostly about exploitation of the naivety of the youngsters and less about software and programming.

That's not just the software business.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

#54

I'm not "young" anymore and not "old" yet, but I'm quite saddened by this point of view: 'The young understand new technologies better than the old do, and are like a clean slate: they will rapidly learn the latest coding methods and techniques, and they don’t carry any “technology baggage”'. Software business seems mostly about exploitation of the naivety of the youngsters and less about software and programming.

I feel my age puts me in a unique place because I was lucky enough to grow up with computers as they matured. I have knowledge of the world before and after software ate it. What you call "technological baggage", I call wisdom.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

#55

I'm not "young" anymore and not "old" yet, but I'm quite saddened by this point of view: 'The young understand new technologies better than the old do, and are like a clean slate: they will rapidly learn the latest coding methods and techniques, and they don’t carry any “technology baggage”'. Software business seems mostly about exploitation of the naivety of the youngsters and less about software and programming.

To start a "modern" project today, you have to know programming languages, infrastructure, and packaging systems that didn't even exist five years ago.

That's the surface-level "technology" they (VCs) mean. VCs don't care about your deep algorithm knowledge or domain experience unless it can accelerate user-facing interfaces to the moon.

If you hire people with 30 years experience, do they know what a Gruntfile is? Do they know the difference between Gruntfile.js, component.json, and package.json? Do they know the relation between Docker and Vagrant and Kubernetes and CoreOS and rkt and etcd? Maybe they still love XML a little too much. Now they have to re-learn the same things they already knew, but with new fads and new syntax and new bugs built-in, all while trying to keep "old ways" vs "new ways" straight in their cluttered heads.

Even look a hyper-accelerated areas: Ember? Angular? React? React forks? Become an expert in any single one and you're irrelevant within 3 years unless you want to support "legacy" apps forever.

Saying "old" is confusing too. Is "old" 30 years COBOL experience at one company where they wrote everything themselves and can't think any other way? Is "old" 30 years of always chasing the latest fads, master of none?

If you have a long work history, and if you are good at something, there's a good chance soon the thing you're good at will be replaced by something you're not good at. Congratulations, now you are "old" and out of touch. Younger people created something new and now your experience isn't relevant. In a way, "experience" is a fool's game. Experience requires a fixed point of deep understanding, but while you're getting experience, the world is moving out from under you.

You're almost better starting off as a 15 year old who learns everything new with no historical baggage. Nobody wants to hear old stories about stacks of punchcards and time sharing woes when we've got to deploy and monitor 1,000 instances to AWS in the next 15 minutes. But, you can't go back and become a blank-slate 15 year old every 5 years when the fads change out from under you. Ergo, you're old and out of touch and worthless and go live on a programmer retirement farm in iowa because you're not a culture fit with the 22 year old CEOs anymore. yolo, and you wasted it by not becoming a billionaire by 28.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

#56

First, Keep in mind this was written by Vivek Wadhwa, who has a history of attention-seeking articles and statements on social issues in tech. Second, while the startup scene may follow this trend, the larger employers of the SF Bay Area are not staffed with 20-somethings, they're staffed by all age groups.

Also, in the startup scene, since new upcoming startups are mostly headed by young newcomers, I guess they would prefer working with the same age people to avoid criticism from an experienced professional. An experienced guy would probably be not as easygoing as them. However, I think, in the end its their loss, one can always learn from others experience.

I don't think experienced guys would find learning a new technologies hard, in the contrary it might be easier for them.

The only point where the young people could be a better choice for a startup is the working hours. Assuming experienced professionals are married and settled, working at a startup might be difficult for them.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

#57

Let's see - you can get these experienced engineers, who will build a proper platform, a robust architecture, a decent code base, and given the fact they have delivered before, a solution that will provide what the customers want. Or You can have these wet behind the ears fuckers straight from college who will just download a metric shit ton of code via gem install and npm, and then rebuild several wheels in JS, whil…

>And the vcs choose youth over experience every time.

With predictable results:

"A compelling report out from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation describes how most institutional investors, including larger state pension funds, endowments and foundations, may be shortchanged by their investments in venture capital funds. "

"Over the past decade, public stock markets have outperformed the average venture capital fund and for 15 years, VC funds have failed to return to investors the significant amounts of cash invested, despite high-profile successes, including Google, Groupon and LinkedIn."

http://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2012/05/we-have-...

Re: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

#58
post #26

There is something I frankly don't understand. Why would anyone discriminate against older, more experienced engineers? Tech companies are spending millions of dollars on their offices and employee-perks to attract and retain talent and yet they discriminate against the category of people who has the most experience? It just boggles my mind. I have a very limited perspective, but come from a country where the ageism…

Could anyone explain where this obsession with youth is coming from?

Many people in control want more attention for themselves. One great way is to say "I made that" but refer to people. So, you see investors and industry "mentors" sweep up young people, hope they succeed, then run around saying "I knew this kid was great when he was only 18! Look at me! I'm so smart! I'm Mr. Look At Me!"

A 45 year old investor can't invest in a 45 year old CEO with the same perverse sense of pride around "making it."

Re: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

#59

Don't worry, I'm sure the union has your back. What's that? No union in the tech industry?

Why do we need unions when it's so easy to start a company? There is no monopoly on means of production when it comes to software.

Sure would be nice to own my company's patent portfolio and to be able to rent it out to them.

Re: Silicon Valley’s Dark Secret: It’s All About Age (2010)

#60

I guess it is the same old fallacy that crept into some big software companies long time ago. The fallacy is called "speed": Some companies are just looking for young, smart people who can solve problems fast. This fallacy has some correct side: Software development is most of the time about solving problems and when you can solve them faster, you will have the software faster. The fallacy part is, that fast is the o…

Some companies are just looking for young, smart people who can solve problems fast.

When your company only exists for 6-18 months before being acquired at $2 million per developer, it's worth getting the build-big-who-cares-about-correctness drones in your hand.

People with no experience have fewer reservations about being "led" a certain way or actually doing the wrong thing (because they may not have the real-world experience to say "nope, bad idea.") As a bonus, the uninitiated will probably believe well-spoken, optimistic lies about becoming a billion dollar company within a year, everybody gets a Tesla as a bonus next year, etc, to make them work harder for no tangible reward.

Post reply on HN