5 ms·

>Now, I have my dream job, my dream location, my own damn house, and my family. -Whole thing feels like a dream I might wake up from if I am not careful... and

by xenihn 6y ago

>Now, I have my dream job, my dream location, my own damn house, and my family. -Whole thing feels like a dream I might wake up from if I am not careful... and I feel totally weighed down when it comes to speaking up in a way I would have never countenanced a few years ago. I'm not at this point yet, but reading this makes me wonder why any employer would ever prefer younger employees with nothing tying them down, for any reasons other than the fact that we cost less. Sure, you'll save money on salary, but odds are that we're going to move on within a year or two if you're not a top-paying company. Even then, there's no guarantee. Meanwhile, someone who has dependents and a mortgage has more to lose and less leverage.

vinceguidry 6y ago
I’m convinced that it’s because younger people are easier to control and less likely to speak up about messed up stuff. So while it would be in the company’s best interest to hire more experienced developers, it’s in the interest of individual managers to prefer younger folks.
- xenihn 6y ago
  This makes sense. I didn't think about it specifically from a manager's POV, since I'd like to think they're more likely to act in the company's best interests when it's a tiny/small eng org.
tobmlt 6y ago
Oh yes, some (many?) employers do prefer those with more to loose. Immigration rules tie right into this as well (of course).
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Oh yes, some (many?) employers do prefer those with more to loose. Years ago I actually had a hiring manager tell me "all of our guys have families" and later "we're really looking for people who want that stability". Direct discrimination against single people. Fortunately I did not get that job, and ended up much better off elsewhere.
sva_ 6y ago
> makes me wonder why any employer would ever prefer younger employees with nothing tying them down Probably a lot of reasons, but a major one may be that young people with no family of their own got all day, every day, to think about work-related problems - especially so, if they derive a lot of meaning from their work, as many people do. It's probably also a lot easier to boss them around, especially if said people crave acknowledgement from some authority figure.
AnHonestComment 6y ago
It’s a trade off: Younger workers have less to lose, so tend to leave more — but they’re also less experienced and tend to have lower expectations for the workplace. Older workers are less likely to leave because it’s disruptive, but they’re also more experienced at the political side of life — and tend to insist on things like reasonable hours, professional management, etc. My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game — but from the employers who act that way... There’s some who prefer the lower expectations (eg, Amazon) and some who prefer the more stable crew (eg, ATT).
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game Maybe in highly paid and creative fields, but for the vast majority of business around the world, I observe exploiting the power imbalance between employer and employee to be very beneficial for the employer.
  - AnHonestComment 6y ago
    How so? My experience is that you get small gains (eg, 10-100M) but you see an uptick in similarly sized faults (eg, tax audits or plane defects) and then go negative on the occasional preventable disaster (eg, 737 MAX). Edit: this is different than being beneficial for some employee at the employer — ie, it probably improves some VPs bonus even though it’s negative for the company, overall. Then you have the various examples that succeeded by treating workers well — Ford, Avis, Boeing, etc. I’m curious how you’re comparing companies to reach that conclusion.
timwaagh 6y ago
Having to pay less is pretty major if you are the one doing the paying.
- xenihn 6y ago
  Sure, but is it cheaper in the long run when you account for attrition, hiring costs (recruiters, engineer hours spent interviewing), and ramp-up? Let's go ahead and assume that things like code quality and technical debt aren't factors here, and that the replacements for regrettable attrition would receive (and accept) offers with comparable TC.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    You don't bother thinking about that. Over time you have a large enough sample size for attrition rate and you hire based off that. it doesn't matter if a few leave, a few will always leave.
    - xenihn 6y ago
      Why not think about it?
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        It costs time and value when you really can't control it. No matter what there will be attrition for reasons completely outside of a company's control. You find a comfortable attrition rate for your business. if it's too high you deal with it.
  - timwaagh 6y ago
    That depends on project duration. Most projects did not go on more than a year or two. If that's the case your ramp up would happen once every two years even if everybody stayed forever. If you're reasonably efficient about it, you can hire someone with maybe a few hours of engineer time. If the average engineer stays even a year it's not that much.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
HN is filled with ultra talented devs getting offers. It's not that easy to find a new job for 90% of the population.

by xenihn 6y ago

vinceguidry 6y ago

I’m convinced that it’s because younger people are easier to control and less likely to speak up about messed up stuff. So while it would be in the company’s best interest to hire more experienced developers, it’s in the interest of individual managers to prefer younger folks.

xenihn 6y ago
This makes sense. I didn't think about it specifically from a manager's POV, since I'd like to think they're more likely to act in the company's best interests when it's a tiny/small eng org.

tobmlt 6y ago

Oh yes, some (many?) employers do prefer those with more to loose. Immigration rules tie right into this as well (of course).

nitrogen 6y ago
Oh yes, some (many?) employers do prefer those with more to loose. Years ago I actually had a hiring manager tell me "all of our guys have families" and later "we're really looking for people who want that stability". Direct discrimination against single people. Fortunately I did not get that job, and ended up much better off elsewhere.

sva_ 6y ago

> makes me wonder why any employer would ever prefer younger employees with nothing tying them down Probably a lot of reasons, but a major one may be that young people with no family of their own got all day, every day, to think about work-related problems - especially so, if they derive a lot of meaning from their work, as many people do. It's probably also a lot easier to boss them around, especially if said people crave acknowledgement from some authority figure.

AnHonestComment 6y ago

It’s a trade off: Younger workers have less to lose, so tend to leave more — but they’re also less experienced and tend to have lower expectations for the workplace. Older workers are less likely to leave because it’s disruptive, but they’re also more experienced at the political side of life — and tend to insist on things like reasonable hours, professional management, etc. My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game — but from the employers who act that way... There’s some who prefer the lower expectations (eg, Amazon) and some who prefer the more stable crew (eg, ATT).

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game Maybe in highly paid and creative fields, but for the vast majority of business around the world, I observe exploiting the power imbalance between employer and employee to be very beneficial for the employer.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  How so? My experience is that you get small gains (eg, 10-100M) but you see an uptick in similarly sized faults (eg, tax audits or plane defects) and then go negative on the occasional preventable disaster (eg, 737 MAX). Edit: this is different than being beneficial for some employee at the employer — ie, it probably improves some VPs bonus even though it’s negative for the company, overall. Then you have the various examples that succeeded by treating workers well — Ford, Avis, Boeing, etc. I’m curious how you’re comparing companies to reach that conclusion.

timwaagh 6y ago

Having to pay less is pretty major if you are the one doing the paying.

xenihn 6y ago
Sure, but is it cheaper in the long run when you account for attrition, hiring costs (recruiters, engineer hours spent interviewing), and ramp-up? Let's go ahead and assume that things like code quality and technical debt aren't factors here, and that the replacements for regrettable attrition would receive (and accept) offers with comparable TC.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  You don't bother thinking about that. Over time you have a large enough sample size for attrition rate and you hire based off that. it doesn't matter if a few leave, a few will always leave.
  - xenihn 6y ago
    Why not think about it?
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      It costs time and value when you really can't control it. No matter what there will be attrition for reasons completely outside of a company's control. You find a comfortable attrition rate for your business. if it's too high you deal with it.
- timwaagh 6y ago
  That depends on project duration. Most projects did not go on more than a year or two. If that's the case your ramp up would happen once every two years even if everybody stayed forever. If you're reasonably efficient about it, you can hire someone with maybe a few hours of engineer time. If the average engineer stays even a year it's not that much.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

HN is filled with ultra talented devs getting offers. It's not that easy to find a new job for 90% of the population.