Your statement is both right and wrong. 1> Wrong, because "something new" is often ill-defined and often not _really_ new. For example, in the area of 'DevOps'

Your statement is both right and wrong. 1> Wrong, because "something new" is often ill-defined and often not _really_ new. For example, in the area of 'DevOps' (itself ill-defined) there are numerous tools and frameworks. But what you really need to deliver as a Sysadmin/SRE/Devops person, is a strong understanding of exactly _3_ skills: Operating Systems, Networking & Programming. Because people & companies do not understand this, we end up in situations where they reject a candidate because they don't know Ansible, but the candidate knows a lot about Python, Linux, SSH and so on (ie things that Ansible is actually built on). Many folks don't need to learn "new" things to stay relevant. 2> Right, because its not easy to actually gauge a candidate and determine that a person will _learn_ and deliver on Ansible simply because they have such good Python, Linux & OS skills. They don't even know that if the candidate doesn't know Ansible, I need to quiz them in other ways. That is often because the interviewer is not up to the par either. This wrongly places the burden on the candidate to reply that "I'm an expert in Ansible", and "learn" something they don't really need to. Coupled with the fact that many candidates themselves flat out lie and are incompetent etc.. you get the market situation for 'aged' people today.