5 ms·

I wonder how much of a barrier this is when a woman over 50 has specific, up to date, hard skills like those discussed on HN. In other words, how much is discr

I wonder how much of a barrier this is when a woman over 50 has specific, up to date, hard skills like those discussed on HN. In other words, how much is discrimination and how much is investing in and managing an up to date skill set.

ghaff 11y ago
The short answer is almost certainly that it still is. Obviously, specific marketable skills are almost always going to be better than just a more generic administrative/business background. However, age discrimination is absolutely a thing and you can't chalk it all up to not being willing to put in the hours or having obsolete skills.
- dave2000 11y ago
  Age discrimination is a thing but the idea that you work for a company to benefit them and not yourself is something that's taking a painfully long time to sink in for a lot of people. Perhaps for older people they were brought up to think you just work all the time, in one company perhaps, because...its just something you do. The idea that you only work because someone finds what you do economically advantageous is lost on some people. I often hear people complaining that they're not "getting training" at work (for free, on their employer's time). Well, yeah, that costs them a bunch of money and benefits you. Yes, you could argue it benefits them too, but not as much as them simply firing you and hiring someone who already has the skills.
  - LoSboccacc 11y ago
    And to double down on this, people expect to have things just because. If one doesn't negotiate training hours in writing on their contract, then it has no reason to expect anything from the employer. Why people don't ask to put on paper what they expect is beyond me. And if asking such things during negotiation put you at disadvantage compared to other hires, so be it. You can't have the cake and eat it too.
flint 11y ago
Say you are a 35 year old manager. All else equal who do you hire; a 25 year old or a 50 year old? Is it age discrimination to hire an individual that you think you'd be better able to manage?
- djKianoosh 11y ago
  not sure what exactly you are implying, but in my limited experience, I'd take the 50 year old over the 25 yr old in a heartbeat. you say all else equal. thats a dream world. the 50 yr old will have, very likely, a vast range of valuable life experiences (unless theyve been living in a proverbial cave all their life).. and yeah im 37 and i lead a team with a variety of ages. age is not an important factor, like at all. enthusiasm and genuine-ness is.
  - shiraabel 11y ago
    You're the minority.
    - jpmec 11y ago
      also 37 which is youth-speak for "old", their opinion doesn't matter anymore :-(
  - enraged_camel 11y ago
    >>the 50 yr old will have, very likely, a vast range of valuable life experiences And therefore be a lot less likely to recognize and take seriously the authority of a 25-year-old manager. In fact, in their mind they will probably think they should be the manager. I've seen it happen and it wasn't pretty.
    - dugmartin 11y ago
      As a 44 year old programmer myself I wouldn't say a 25-year old manager would be the problem but rather dealing with a manager with maybe 3 years of real experience. Good managers, like good programmers, are a mix of ability and experience and many inexperienced managers haven't taken the lesson from _Space Camp_ to heart: being boss and being bossy aren't the same.
IshKebab 11y ago
I expect a lot of it is that they had a decent job for many years that gave them regular pay rises, but probably above their value. If they wanted another job now they'd have to take a pay cut, and nobody wants that. There's a guy at my work like that. 50s, lab technician. Very good at what he does, but he's been with the company for maybe 15 years and no doubt has a very good salary for a lab technician. He wants to leave but basically can't because there's no chance anyone will pay his salary for a new lab technician.
- mgkimsal 11y ago
  "no chance anyone will pay his salary for a new lab technician." Except... he's not a new lab technician. He's a technician in a new lab, perhaps, but the technical differences can't be THAT great to justify starting him at a massively reduced salary. Bigger issue is just how much value he can justify in a new employment situation in general. :/
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  Let's guess: the gentleman is very capable, but most candidates are not. Any potential replacement hire would need a reference from a colleague whom you trust just because the pool is so awful, and even then the new guy would need extensive training to be up to snuff. Old guy can't leave because at any potential new place the people making the hiring decision don't trust your reference because they don't know you. Sounds all very familiar.

ghaff 11y ago

The short answer is almost certainly that it still is. Obviously, specific marketable skills are almost always going to be better than just a more generic administrative/business background. However, age discrimination is absolutely a thing and you can't chalk it all up to not being willing to put in the hours or having obsolete skills.

dave2000 11y ago
Age discrimination is a thing but the idea that you work for a company to benefit them and not yourself is something that's taking a painfully long time to sink in for a lot of people. Perhaps for older people they were brought up to think you just work all the time, in one company perhaps, because...its just something you do. The idea that you only work because someone finds what you do economically advantageous is lost on some people. I often hear people complaining that they're not "getting training" at work (for free, on their employer's time). Well, yeah, that costs them a bunch of money and benefits you. Yes, you could argue it benefits them too, but not as much as them simply firing you and hiring someone who already has the skills.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  And to double down on this, people expect to have things just because. If one doesn't negotiate training hours in writing on their contract, then it has no reason to expect anything from the employer. Why people don't ask to put on paper what they expect is beyond me. And if asking such things during negotiation put you at disadvantage compared to other hires, so be it. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

flint 11y ago

Say you are a 35 year old manager. All else equal who do you hire; a 25 year old or a 50 year old? Is it age discrimination to hire an individual that you think you'd be better able to manage?

djKianoosh 11y ago
not sure what exactly you are implying, but in my limited experience, I'd take the 50 year old over the 25 yr old in a heartbeat. you say all else equal. thats a dream world. the 50 yr old will have, very likely, a vast range of valuable life experiences (unless theyve been living in a proverbial cave all their life).. and yeah im 37 and i lead a team with a variety of ages. age is not an important factor, like at all. enthusiasm and genuine-ness is.
- shiraabel 11y ago
  You're the minority.
  - jpmec 11y ago
    also 37 which is youth-speak for "old", their opinion doesn't matter anymore :-(
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  >>the 50 yr old will have, very likely, a vast range of valuable life experiences And therefore be a lot less likely to recognize and take seriously the authority of a 25-year-old manager. In fact, in their mind they will probably think they should be the manager. I've seen it happen and it wasn't pretty.
  - dugmartin 11y ago
    As a 44 year old programmer myself I wouldn't say a 25-year old manager would be the problem but rather dealing with a manager with maybe 3 years of real experience. Good managers, like good programmers, are a mix of ability and experience and many inexperienced managers haven't taken the lesson from _Space Camp_ to heart: being boss and being bossy aren't the same.

IshKebab 11y ago

I expect a lot of it is that they had a decent job for many years that gave them regular pay rises, but probably above their value. If they wanted another job now they'd have to take a pay cut, and nobody wants that. There's a guy at my work like that. 50s, lab technician. Very good at what he does, but he's been with the company for maybe 15 years and no doubt has a very good salary for a lab technician. He wants to leave but basically can't because there's no chance anyone will pay his salary for a new lab technician.

mgkimsal 11y ago
"no chance anyone will pay his salary for a new lab technician." Except... he's not a new lab technician. He's a technician in a new lab, perhaps, but the technical differences can't be THAT great to justify starting him at a massively reduced salary. Bigger issue is just how much value he can justify in a new employment situation in general. :/
HarryHirsch 11y ago
Let's guess: the gentleman is very capable, but most candidates are not. Any potential replacement hire would need a reference from a colleague whom you trust just because the pool is so awful, and even then the new guy would need extensive training to be up to snuff. Old guy can't leave because at any potential new place the people making the hiring decision don't trust your reference because they don't know you. Sounds all very familiar.