4 ms·

The group I work with at my current gig just hired two older devs to work with us. One guy came from Lockheed Martin, the other spent most of his career in fina

The group I work with at my current gig just hired two older devs to work with us. One guy came from Lockheed Martin, the other spent most of his career in finance at various banks and investment companies. Both have ungodly amounts of experience with .Net, Java and Javascript. Just being able to have them around has given our team an ocean of knowledge to draw from. I know I'm a better developer just from asking for help and bouncing stuff off of them. You can't put a price on stuff like this.

tyingq 9y ago
That's exactly the value I was alluding to. Is paying these folks, say, 20% more than someone in their 30's really a boat anchor, or is it an asset?
- volkl48 9y ago
  Realistically speaking, the answer to that question depends on the current makeup of your employees. If most of your workforce is 50+, you probably don't need more highly experienced people and are probably overpaying for some of the more basic tasks some are doing. It's also not great for continuity if you're set to have large segments of your workforce retiring in a small window of time. On the other hand, if your workforce skews young and inexperienced, bringing in some people with much more experience is probably going to be a valuable resource for them that'll help everyone perform better, and will help you avoid costly mistakes.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    That's a good observation. Managers should be maintaining a reasonable balance.
- scholia 9y ago
  That's not what's happening. A decade ago, IBM had 130,00 staff in the USA and very few in India. Today, IBM has 130,00 staff in India and it refuses to say how many are left in the USA. It's not really a question of saving a bit of money (20%, say) on American employees. IBM is just shipping jobs to India at a terrific rate because the cost of employing Indians is, in comparison, very very low. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/ibm-shifts-center-of-gravity-half-a-world-away-to-india/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/ibm-shifts-center-of-g...
pm90 9y ago
A lot of great engineers get laid off simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, especially in bigger orgs. When it comes time to cut down expenses, the more experienced (and hence higher compensated) engineers are usually prime targets to get axed. Its really stupid and short term thinking, but there is a reason why it happens. OTOH looks like your org actually benefited tremendously from having those experienced engineers, so in a morbid way their being laid off turned out to be good for everyone involved.
itronitron 9y ago
genuinely curious how your organization managed to hire them

tyingq 9y ago

That's exactly the value I was alluding to. Is paying these folks, say, 20% more than someone in their 30's really a boat anchor, or is it an asset?

volkl48 9y ago
Realistically speaking, the answer to that question depends on the current makeup of your employees. If most of your workforce is 50+, you probably don't need more highly experienced people and are probably overpaying for some of the more basic tasks some are doing. It's also not great for continuity if you're set to have large segments of your workforce retiring in a small window of time. On the other hand, if your workforce skews young and inexperienced, bringing in some people with much more experience is probably going to be a valuable resource for them that'll help everyone perform better, and will help you avoid costly mistakes.
- tyingq 9y ago
  That's a good observation. Managers should be maintaining a reasonable balance.
scholia 9y ago
That's not what's happening. A decade ago, IBM had 130,00 staff in the USA and very few in India. Today, IBM has 130,00 staff in India and it refuses to say how many are left in the USA. It's not really a question of saving a bit of money (20%, say) on American employees. IBM is just shipping jobs to India at a terrific rate because the cost of employing Indians is, in comparison, very very low. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/ibm-shifts-center-of-gravity-half-a-world-away-to-india/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/ibm-shifts-center-of-g...

pm90 9y ago

A lot of great engineers get laid off simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, especially in bigger orgs. When it comes time to cut down expenses, the more experienced (and hence higher compensated) engineers are usually prime targets to get axed. Its really stupid and short term thinking, but there is a reason why it happens. OTOH looks like your org actually benefited tremendously from having those experienced engineers, so in a morbid way their being laid off turned out to be good for everyone involved.

itronitron 9y ago

genuinely curious how your organization managed to hire them