3 ms·

Thanks for sharing this--and sorry in advance if I came off abrasive. I just think the key difference in our industry is that it's far more punishing than othe

Thanks for sharing this--and sorry in advance if I came off abrasive. I just think the key difference in our industry is that it's far more punishing than others if you're not keeping up to date with relevant skills. I'm 29 and my last search was two years ago. My last job had me primarily doing ColdFusion-based web development and occasionally iOS development. A big part of the reason I left was specifically to avoid finding myself trapped with few relevant skills a few years later. I got into and built hobby projects around an upcoming "hot" new paradigm (serverless) and learned Python along the way to do it. Being able to talk passionately about that (and cloud architecture in general) was key to finding my next position even though most of my cloud experience on the job was with the plain stuff (like normal VMs). But despite being 27, I wasn't immune from having to branch out, learn new things, and become passionate about something to find a new position. Respectfully: our industry doesn't allow for one to stick to the same skillset for long. Your post reinforces what I had feared, which is that people are blaming ageism while sitting on a skillset that is no longer competitive. I think this is a problem that needs to be handled, and maybe that's through a more industry norm "20% time" for trying new things, a stronger case for experience applying well to new concepts, or something else. But I don't think the problem is ageism.

majormajor 9y ago
> But despite being 27, I wasn't immune from having to branch out, learn new things, and become passionate about something to find a new position. Respectfully: our industry doesn't allow for one to stick to the same skillset for long. Your post reinforces what I had feared, which is that people are blaming ageism while sitting on a skillset that is no longer competitive. That's shortsighted and your employer's process sounds shortsighted. I don't give a crap if you've already used React, Redux, Express, whatever new flavor of the months are coming. If you're 23 and actively using them, odds are you're still going to be worth much less to my team than someone 40 who has to pick them up their first couple months but can immediately contribute valuable, hard-earned broadly-applicable timeless lessons about how to build and operate software. My job as employer, and my team's job as onboarders, is to train you in the specific skills. Yours is to bring a proven ability to learn, and the general knowledge, wisdom, and thought processes to know how to build things right. I don't care if you're passionate, I want to know that you'll be professional enough to take pride in what you do and hold yourself to a standard worth being paid for. If you're a hiring manager and can't figure out better questions than "can you prove you know some things about X technology already," well, please don't get too much better, cause I enjoy being able to hire the skilled people you overlook without as much competition. ;)
- moduspol 9y ago
  I'm not saying it's the definitively the most cost-effective way to hire. It very well could be short-sighted. I think your view is 100% valid and could very well be correct. The key point is I don't think people who disagree should be presumed "-ist." And if you are correct: Good news! As a hiring manager, you apparently have a wider selection of better candidates because your competitors aren't properly assessing value in the right places. I would argue, though, that being able to readily assess someone's experience in a modern framework you're actually using might be a less risky hire than assessing someone's abilities in decades-old technologies you don't use, hoping their lack of horizon-broadening over the last ten years hasn't been due to complacency, and paying them more just to find out. But I could be wrong! And that's OK. We should be able to disagree without the "-ist" so often.
- strken 9y ago
  > I don't give a crap if you've already used React, Redux, Express, whatever new flavor of the months are coming. If you're 23 and actively using them, odds are you're still going to be worth much less to my team than someone 40 who has to pick them up their first couple months but can immediately contribute valuable, hard-earned broadly-applicable timeless lessons about how to build and operate software. Odds are fine, but they aren't a shortcut for using your brain. If a team's culture makes its members instantly side with either the 40 year old or the 23 year old when he/she makes a claim like "we don't need to write tests", "there are no problems in my code", or "we should convert our entire existing repo to <different style/library/language>", then that culture is stifling discussion and actively harming the quality of the code the team writes. Same applies to hiring decisions. It's frustrating to see ageism swinging back and forth like a pendulum. There's value in having both the crystallised intelligence of older workers and the fluid intelligence of younger workers on one team, provided they firstly get hired and secondly manage to work together.
- phil21 9y ago
  > I don't give a crap if you've already used React, Redux, Express, whatever new flavor of the months are coming. If you're 23 and actively using them, odds are you're still going to be worth much less to my team than someone 40 who has to pick them up their first couple months but can immediately contribute valuable, hard-earned broadly-applicable timeless lessons about how to build and operate software. Just as the majority of 23 year olds are what you are imagining (inexperienced, know-it-alls, chasing the latest fad, etc.) I would say the majority of 40 year old programmers are just as useless in the other direction. Maybe not on HN where everyone is above average, but in the flyover states it's absolutely the case. Exceedingly few 40+ year old programmers around these parts I'd describe as holding a relevant modern skillset or holding any interest whatsoever in updating their knowledge or trying to stay competitive. It's almost universal derision over the "flavor of the month" until 10-15 years down the road when they realized flavor of the month turned into Linux and all they have left is bitterness over being left behind. Just as you have the hiring skills to weed through the huge cruft of useless candidates of your preferred type, some hiring managers hold the skills to wade through the cruft of young hipster bros and find the gems as well. The 80/20 rule typically applies to all things in life. So put another way - in the end, I'd say it all roughly evens out in my experience. I think age is an extremely poor metric for productivity, and it really depends on the specific individual. I say all this as someone much closer to 40 than 20.
loup-vaillant 9y ago
Your comment highlights more problems than just ageism. First, what's the deal with passion? Can't land a job if you're not passionate about whatever the prospective employer wants you to work on? Replace that word by "enthusiasm" and it'll be more acceptable. Sorry for singly you out, it's the zeitgeist I'm after. Second, the "relevant skills" bullshit. Sillysaurus3 had relevant skills for a wide range of jobs. The only problem was the lack of trendy buzzwords in the résumé. Employers just don't want to spend a few weeks (or even a few days) training someone to a new stack.
- moduspol 9y ago
  In the context of a job hiring candidate, I'd consider "passion" and "enthusiasm" to be synonymous. The idea would be to imply that you're interested in building cool things and solving difficult problems more so than just receiving a paycheck. And that's a beneficial thing to convey as a candidate regardless of your age. Regarding training someone for a new stack: You quite possibly are right. I just think it's possible for employers to disagree with your view and not be presumed "-ist."
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    > I just think it's possible for employers to disagree with your view and not be presumed "-ist." So do I. There are more ways to be wrong than being an "-ist".
- brian_cunnie 9y ago
  I used to be passionate about computers, but it's hard to sustain passion after 35 years — these days I'm merely affectionate.
mcguire 9y ago
What are "relevant skills?" It's it a programming language? An environment? A framework? When I started, I was expected to pick anything up as I was working. I got my first job partially as a result of having seen Smalltalk in a programming language class. The important "relevant skills" were enough background to pick up new things (since everywhere was different) and a demonstrated ability to get work done.
- moduspol 9y ago
  "Relevant skills" are the things listed as "required" or "preferred" in the job ad. These typically are all of those things. I agree with your second paragraph--but isn't that a strong case for investing in a cheaper developer with less experience?

majormajor 9y ago

> But despite being 27, I wasn't immune from having to branch out, learn new things, and become passionate about something to find a new position. Respectfully: our industry doesn't allow for one to stick to the same skillset for long. Your post reinforces what I had feared, which is that people are blaming ageism while sitting on a skillset that is no longer competitive. That's shortsighted and your employer's process sounds shortsighted. I don't give a crap if you've already used React, Redux, Express, whatever new flavor of the months are coming. If you're 23 and actively using them, odds are you're still going to be worth much less to my team than someone 40 who has to pick them up their first couple months but can immediately contribute valuable, hard-earned broadly-applicable timeless lessons about how to build and operate software. My job as employer, and my team's job as onboarders, is to train you in the specific skills. Yours is to bring a proven ability to learn, and the general knowledge, wisdom, and thought processes to know how to build things right. I don't care if you're passionate, I want to know that you'll be professional enough to take pride in what you do and hold yourself to a standard worth being paid for. If you're a hiring manager and can't figure out better questions than "can you prove you know some things about X technology already," well, please don't get too much better, cause I enjoy being able to hire the skilled people you overlook without as much competition. ;)

moduspol 9y ago
I'm not saying it's the definitively the most cost-effective way to hire. It very well could be short-sighted. I think your view is 100% valid and could very well be correct. The key point is I don't think people who disagree should be presumed "-ist." And if you are correct: Good news! As a hiring manager, you apparently have a wider selection of better candidates because your competitors aren't properly assessing value in the right places. I would argue, though, that being able to readily assess someone's experience in a modern framework you're actually using might be a less risky hire than assessing someone's abilities in decades-old technologies you don't use, hoping their lack of horizon-broadening over the last ten years hasn't been due to complacency, and paying them more just to find out. But I could be wrong! And that's OK. We should be able to disagree without the "-ist" so often.
strken 9y ago
> I don't give a crap if you've already used React, Redux, Express, whatever new flavor of the months are coming. If you're 23 and actively using them, odds are you're still going to be worth much less to my team than someone 40 who has to pick them up their first couple months but can immediately contribute valuable, hard-earned broadly-applicable timeless lessons about how to build and operate software. Odds are fine, but they aren't a shortcut for using your brain. If a team's culture makes its members instantly side with either the 40 year old or the 23 year old when he/she makes a claim like "we don't need to write tests", "there are no problems in my code", or "we should convert our entire existing repo to <different style/library/language>", then that culture is stifling discussion and actively harming the quality of the code the team writes. Same applies to hiring decisions. It's frustrating to see ageism swinging back and forth like a pendulum. There's value in having both the crystallised intelligence of older workers and the fluid intelligence of younger workers on one team, provided they firstly get hired and secondly manage to work together.
phil21 9y ago
> I don't give a crap if you've already used React, Redux, Express, whatever new flavor of the months are coming. If you're 23 and actively using them, odds are you're still going to be worth much less to my team than someone 40 who has to pick them up their first couple months but can immediately contribute valuable, hard-earned broadly-applicable timeless lessons about how to build and operate software. Just as the majority of 23 year olds are what you are imagining (inexperienced, know-it-alls, chasing the latest fad, etc.) I would say the majority of 40 year old programmers are just as useless in the other direction. Maybe not on HN where everyone is above average, but in the flyover states it's absolutely the case. Exceedingly few 40+ year old programmers around these parts I'd describe as holding a relevant modern skillset or holding any interest whatsoever in updating their knowledge or trying to stay competitive. It's almost universal derision over the "flavor of the month" until 10-15 years down the road when they realized flavor of the month turned into Linux and all they have left is bitterness over being left behind. Just as you have the hiring skills to weed through the huge cruft of useless candidates of your preferred type, some hiring managers hold the skills to wade through the cruft of young hipster bros and find the gems as well. The 80/20 rule typically applies to all things in life. So put another way - in the end, I'd say it all roughly evens out in my experience. I think age is an extremely poor metric for productivity, and it really depends on the specific individual. I say all this as someone much closer to 40 than 20.

loup-vaillant 9y ago

Your comment highlights more problems than just ageism. First, what's the deal with passion? Can't land a job if you're not passionate about whatever the prospective employer wants you to work on? Replace that word by "enthusiasm" and it'll be more acceptable. Sorry for singly you out, it's the zeitgeist I'm after. Second, the "relevant skills" bullshit. Sillysaurus3 had relevant skills for a wide range of jobs. The only problem was the lack of trendy buzzwords in the résumé. Employers just don't want to spend a few weeks (or even a few days) training someone to a new stack.

moduspol 9y ago
In the context of a job hiring candidate, I'd consider "passion" and "enthusiasm" to be synonymous. The idea would be to imply that you're interested in building cool things and solving difficult problems more so than just receiving a paycheck. And that's a beneficial thing to convey as a candidate regardless of your age. Regarding training someone for a new stack: You quite possibly are right. I just think it's possible for employers to disagree with your view and not be presumed "-ist."
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  > I just think it's possible for employers to disagree with your view and not be presumed "-ist." So do I. There are more ways to be wrong than being an "-ist".
brian_cunnie 9y ago
I used to be passionate about computers, but it's hard to sustain passion after 35 years — these days I'm merely affectionate.

mcguire 9y ago

What are "relevant skills?" It's it a programming language? An environment? A framework? When I started, I was expected to pick anything up as I was working. I got my first job partially as a result of having seen Smalltalk in a programming language class. The important "relevant skills" were enough background to pick up new things (since everywhere was different) and a demonstrated ability to get work done.

moduspol 9y ago
"Relevant skills" are the things listed as "required" or "preferred" in the job ad. These typically are all of those things. I agree with your second paragraph--but isn't that a strong case for investing in a cheaper developer with less experience?