4 ms·

> Very soon ageism will catch up with me and I'll be unemployed. I guess if you've made up your mind that this is inevitable then it probably is. As a counterp

> Very soon ageism will catch up with me and I'll be unemployed. I guess if you've made up your mind that this is inevitable then it probably is. As a counterpoint I'm turning 57 this Thursday and I'm happily employed as an SRE for a small company. I'm well past "my forties" and have not found ageism to be a significant barrier. The OP did not request advice on how to remain technically relevant, so I won't offer any here, but if you're at the point where you're no longer interested in growing as an engineer then yeah, time to find something else to do.

g051051 9y ago
I'm 53, no sign of "ageism" in the company I've worked at for 18 years. None of my friends has encountered it, either. Not to say it doesn't exist, but it's not the foregone conclusion OP makes it out to be. It's all about attitude and drive, and I have more of both now than I did as a young programmer.
- AnkhMorporkian 9y ago
  I think ageism (in software) is largely a problem in startup culture. I've never seen a trace of it, but a few of my older friends with beaucoup experience have tried to join startups and told they weren't a "fit for the culture." Really sounds like code for "you can't hang with us old man."
  - lj3 9y ago
    > I think ageism (in software) is largely a problem in startup culture. Yes and no. Larger companies don't like hiring older employees because they can get more bang for their buck by hiring young(er) people who are willing to stick with the company for life. Being an older programmer who has been at the same company for 30+ years isn't proof that the company doesn't engage in ageism. It also means they're unaware of the current state of the hiring market and how brutal it's become over the past 10 years.
    - AnkhMorporkian 9y ago
      I hate saying it, but that actually seems fair in a way. If I was interviewing for a company at 66, I could see why they wouldn't want to hire me. There's a solid chance I'd leave the next year when I get social security. That being said, I have no idea how that problem should be addressed.
- manyxcxi 9y ago
  The fact that you’ve been there for that long suggests that you’re working for an ‘older’ (both as in the age of the company AND the average age of employees) company to begin with, which would likely NOT have that kind of culture. As someone who’s worked for older companies and younger ones, I feel like it’s all a matter of where direct technical management is placing emphasis, not some kind of deep seeded collusion between hiring managers. Companies that want to ‘move fast’ tend to hire younger because they connotate old ~= slow. Companies that want solid, stable, well engineered solutions seem to feel like young ~= junior. My opinion is: they're both kind of right in the aggregate. By and large the older people I’ve worked with and employed were a fair bit slower to get to initial done. But they got there in a well engineered way that had less post launch defects, was easier to maintain, and in general showed the decades of corner cases they have etched into their soul from all their battles. By and large the younger/less experienced the more eager they were to pick up and learn the new and shiny tech. Which is awesome when we have to take on a new piece of tech for whatever reason. I typically find them voracious when pointed at a problem that interests them, and they usually hammer out something a noticeable amount faster than the older crowd. However, in general, the post launch defects are atrocious when compared to the more experienced crowd, I often see spaghetti architecture, and there’s much less pragmatism when it comes to decision making. Surprise! Experienced people lean on their experience and wisdom and young people utilize their appetite for knowledge and their (comparatively) vast amount of stamina. It’s almost like there’s a few millennia of stories around this topic... A room full of 10 year olds may learn fine on their own. Stick a 30 year old teacher in the room with them and watch their minds expand. A room full of 30 year olds can be kind of boring. Stick some young’ins in there with them and watch them play. Good teams should have both. Experienced pros have a lot to teach and people that think they can’t learn anything from them are, frankly, stupid. I also strongly believe that youthful exuberance is infectious and makes it more fun for everyone to come in to work.
  - wott 9y ago
    > A room full of 30 year olds can be kind of boring. Stick some young’ins in there with them and watch them play. The simple fact that you oppose "30 years olds" to "young" is telling enough... 30 years old are supposed to be in the first quarter of their career, and yet you already place them in the 'old' side. We can only imagine what the representation of 40 years old, let alone 50 or 60 years old, is in this industry. Something than range from decrepit to senile, I suppose.
vijayr 9y ago
The OP did not request advice on how to remain technically relevant, so I won't offer any here, Not sure if OP is interested in your advice, but I am sure there are others who would be. Please do share any advice that you can! Specifically for those who don't want to (or can't) get into "management"
- markbnj 9y ago
  I think the short answer here, or the inverse of the answer :), is that you begin to become irrelevant when engineering stops being the thing you like to do. I don't think you can force yourself to remain a valuable engineer if you don't like what you're doing, and conversely if you do like what you're doing it's not at all hard to stay relevant. I know many people who have been doctors, lawyers, architects, civil engineers, etc., for their entire lives and retired with some measure of distinction and the respect of their younger colleagues. Nobody ever thought to ask them why they kept doctoring, architecting and lawyering and did not go into management. Programming and systems engineering were not jumping off points to my management career: this is my profession, and fortunately it's one that doesn't require great physical agility or stamina, so as long as I am able to avoid atrophy of the brain I hope to continue at it for some years yet.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
laci27 9y ago
You work for a small company. If that company goes bankrupt, are you 100% confident you'll get to work again full time?
- maltalex 9y ago
  What changes if the company is large and it downsizes instead of going bankrupt?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - adventured 9y ago
    Not to mention that at a large company, they often same-size (fake rounds of downsizing) and use it as an excuse to fire employees for various reasons. They might off-shore to reduce labor costs like IBM, or be doing it for union reasons like Tesla. That happens far more often than the actual downsizing of a large company.
  - laci27 9y ago
    You're both right, size of company doesn't matter. Some companies hire the first engineer that goes to the interview (I actually know companies that do this.. God bless their mysql injections), but other companies: Do you think they value experience over knowledge of the latest framework/language/way of doing things?
- markbnj 9y ago
  There are not many things I am 100% confident of, but my confidence level is high in this area because it's happened plenty of times in 25 years. I like to work for small companies because I value the flexibility, autonomy, camaraderie, and absence of pyramidal power structures dominated by influence builders. I accept the fact that smaller companies are more vulnerable, and if I have to leave my current one for some reason I am not terribly worried about finding another.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

g051051 9y ago

I'm 53, no sign of "ageism" in the company I've worked at for 18 years. None of my friends has encountered it, either. Not to say it doesn't exist, but it's not the foregone conclusion OP makes it out to be. It's all about attitude and drive, and I have more of both now than I did as a young programmer.

AnkhMorporkian 9y ago
I think ageism (in software) is largely a problem in startup culture. I've never seen a trace of it, but a few of my older friends with beaucoup experience have tried to join startups and told they weren't a "fit for the culture." Really sounds like code for "you can't hang with us old man."
- lj3 9y ago
  > I think ageism (in software) is largely a problem in startup culture. Yes and no. Larger companies don't like hiring older employees because they can get more bang for their buck by hiring young(er) people who are willing to stick with the company for life. Being an older programmer who has been at the same company for 30+ years isn't proof that the company doesn't engage in ageism. It also means they're unaware of the current state of the hiring market and how brutal it's become over the past 10 years.
  - AnkhMorporkian 9y ago
    I hate saying it, but that actually seems fair in a way. If I was interviewing for a company at 66, I could see why they wouldn't want to hire me. There's a solid chance I'd leave the next year when I get social security. That being said, I have no idea how that problem should be addressed.
manyxcxi 9y ago
The fact that you’ve been there for that long suggests that you’re working for an ‘older’ (both as in the age of the company AND the average age of employees) company to begin with, which would likely NOT have that kind of culture. As someone who’s worked for older companies and younger ones, I feel like it’s all a matter of where direct technical management is placing emphasis, not some kind of deep seeded collusion between hiring managers. Companies that want to ‘move fast’ tend to hire younger because they connotate old ~= slow. Companies that want solid, stable, well engineered solutions seem to feel like young ~= junior. My opinion is: they're both kind of right in the aggregate. By and large the older people I’ve worked with and employed were a fair bit slower to get to initial done. But they got there in a well engineered way that had less post launch defects, was easier to maintain, and in general showed the decades of corner cases they have etched into their soul from all their battles. By and large the younger/less experienced the more eager they were to pick up and learn the new and shiny tech. Which is awesome when we have to take on a new piece of tech for whatever reason. I typically find them voracious when pointed at a problem that interests them, and they usually hammer out something a noticeable amount faster than the older crowd. However, in general, the post launch defects are atrocious when compared to the more experienced crowd, I often see spaghetti architecture, and there’s much less pragmatism when it comes to decision making. Surprise! Experienced people lean on their experience and wisdom and young people utilize their appetite for knowledge and their (comparatively) vast amount of stamina. It’s almost like there’s a few millennia of stories around this topic... A room full of 10 year olds may learn fine on their own. Stick a 30 year old teacher in the room with them and watch their minds expand. A room full of 30 year olds can be kind of boring. Stick some young’ins in there with them and watch them play. Good teams should have both. Experienced pros have a lot to teach and people that think they can’t learn anything from them are, frankly, stupid. I also strongly believe that youthful exuberance is infectious and makes it more fun for everyone to come in to work.
- wott 9y ago
  > A room full of 30 year olds can be kind of boring. Stick some young’ins in there with them and watch them play. The simple fact that you oppose "30 years olds" to "young" is telling enough... 30 years old are supposed to be in the first quarter of their career, and yet you already place them in the 'old' side. We can only imagine what the representation of 40 years old, let alone 50 or 60 years old, is in this industry. Something than range from decrepit to senile, I suppose.

vijayr 9y ago

The OP did not request advice on how to remain technically relevant, so I won't offer any here, Not sure if OP is interested in your advice, but I am sure there are others who would be. Please do share any advice that you can! Specifically for those who don't want to (or can't) get into "management"

markbnj 9y ago
I think the short answer here, or the inverse of the answer :), is that you begin to become irrelevant when engineering stops being the thing you like to do. I don't think you can force yourself to remain a valuable engineer if you don't like what you're doing, and conversely if you do like what you're doing it's not at all hard to stay relevant. I know many people who have been doctors, lawyers, architects, civil engineers, etc., for their entire lives and retired with some measure of distinction and the respect of their younger colleagues. Nobody ever thought to ask them why they kept doctoring, architecting and lawyering and did not go into management. Programming and systems engineering were not jumping off points to my management career: this is my profession, and fortunately it's one that doesn't require great physical agility or stamina, so as long as I am able to avoid atrophy of the brain I hope to continue at it for some years yet.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

laci27 9y ago

You work for a small company. If that company goes bankrupt, are you 100% confident you'll get to work again full time?

maltalex 9y ago
What changes if the company is large and it downsizes instead of going bankrupt?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- adventured 9y ago
  Not to mention that at a large company, they often same-size (fake rounds of downsizing) and use it as an excuse to fire employees for various reasons. They might off-shore to reduce labor costs like IBM, or be doing it for union reasons like Tesla. That happens far more often than the actual downsizing of a large company.
- laci27 9y ago
  You're both right, size of company doesn't matter. Some companies hire the first engineer that goes to the interview (I actually know companies that do this.. God bless their mysql injections), but other companies: Do you think they value experience over knowledge of the latest framework/language/way of doing things?
markbnj 9y ago
There are not many things I am 100% confident of, but my confidence level is high in this area because it's happened plenty of times in 25 years. I like to work for small companies because I value the flexibility, autonomy, camaraderie, and absence of pyramidal power structures dominated by influence builders. I accept the fact that smaller companies are more vulnerable, and if I have to leave my current one for some reason I am not terribly worried about finding another.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]