3 ms·

I said nothing about what is fair, or what should be. I'm describing what is. Programmers jump jobs every 2-4 years (myself included) because it's the best w

I said nothing about what is fair, or what should be. I'm describing what is. Programmers jump jobs every 2-4 years (myself included) because it's the best way to reliably get good pay increases, and because staying more than 10 years at one company often makes it harder to get hired at the next place. You can blame me for recognizing that all you want, but it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry. I want it to always be easy to find lucrative, interesting work, and I'm willing to play the game to keep it that way for myself. I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
> but it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry. Doesn't make it right. Just sayin'...
quadrifoliate 5y ago
> it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry There are a lot of bad things about our industry, repeating the stereotypes that lead to them is still harmful. Which brings me to... > I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly. Simple: If you were in a a position where you were screening resumes, I think you would rule out people with long tenures purely on the basis that the tenure was long. I am saying that this amounts to age-based discrimination, and you should think about it rather than parroting the assertion "Obviously you're unhireable, you worked somewhere for 27 years". And even if you refuse to think about this, my hope is that other commenters will. And maybe, just maybe next time they see a resume with 27 years of experience at one company, they will think "Wow, this person will bring an interesting point of view to the team – they have been through 5 times the tenure of an average VP and have seen the rise and fall of several projects. Let's hire them!"
- Icathian 5y ago
  If it makes you feel any better, I did the hiring manager thing for 2 years before deciding I couldn't stand it, and the average age of my team was 55. I did my bit to not exacerbate this situation. My fervent goal is to stay an IC through retirement. Doing that successfully requires playing the game.
  - quadrifoliate 5y ago
    > ...the average age of my team was 55. I did my bit to not exacerbate this situation. I must say I am pleasantly surprised! Please accept my apologies, and an upvote.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
      > I must say I am pleasantly surprised! Please accept my apologies, and an upvote. I concur. I know that you're "just playing the game as set by the rule-makers." I'm in an unusual position. I'm not looking for work (and, after a few years on my own, I couldn't be dragged into the rat race with a locomotive). That means that I get to say things like "Oi guv! That bloke's starkers!" Won't make me popular, and probably won't change anyone's opinion, but I'll do it, anyway. It's my nature.
- dagmx 5y ago
  Honestly, as someone who reviews tons of resumes for my team, I wouldn't see 27 years at a company as bringing an interesting point of view by itself. I'd look at what they've accomplished in those 27 years. This is no different than someone with 5 years or even 1. If someone only has a couple notable things in 27 years , then I'm not sure what they're bringing to the table. If someone has the same number of notable things in 5 years, then that speaks more to the level of work they're innovating at. In short, it's really about the meaningfulness of what they've done during that time, relative to the tenure. Tenure alone is meaningless IMHO. I've interviewed too many people who have careers longer than my life, who have basically just gotten by. I've also interviewed people who've done amazing things year on year. The latter are the people I seek to build out the team. The former don't add much, unless they're really rock solid devs who've stayed in top of things. But if they're just alright? Then why wouldn't I hire someone more junior when they're giving me the same results, for cheaper, and are usually easier to mold and train?

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

> but it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry. Doesn't make it right. Just sayin'...

quadrifoliate 5y ago

> it's a pretty well-known truth of our industry There are a lot of bad things about our industry, repeating the stereotypes that lead to them is still harmful. Which brings me to... > I'm not sure what about that you object to so strongly. Simple: If you were in a a position where you were screening resumes, I think you would rule out people with long tenures purely on the basis that the tenure was long. I am saying that this amounts to age-based discrimination, and you should think about it rather than parroting the assertion "Obviously you're unhireable, you worked somewhere for 27 years". And even if you refuse to think about this, my hope is that other commenters will. And maybe, just maybe next time they see a resume with 27 years of experience at one company, they will think "Wow, this person will bring an interesting point of view to the team – they have been through 5 times the tenure of an average VP and have seen the rise and fall of several projects. Let's hire them!"

Icathian 5y ago
If it makes you feel any better, I did the hiring manager thing for 2 years before deciding I couldn't stand it, and the average age of my team was 55. I did my bit to not exacerbate this situation. My fervent goal is to stay an IC through retirement. Doing that successfully requires playing the game.
- quadrifoliate 5y ago
  > ...the average age of my team was 55. I did my bit to not exacerbate this situation. I must say I am pleasantly surprised! Please accept my apologies, and an upvote.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    > I must say I am pleasantly surprised! Please accept my apologies, and an upvote. I concur. I know that you're "just playing the game as set by the rule-makers." I'm in an unusual position. I'm not looking for work (and, after a few years on my own, I couldn't be dragged into the rat race with a locomotive). That means that I get to say things like "Oi guv! That bloke's starkers!" Won't make me popular, and probably won't change anyone's opinion, but I'll do it, anyway. It's my nature.
dagmx 5y ago
Honestly, as someone who reviews tons of resumes for my team, I wouldn't see 27 years at a company as bringing an interesting point of view by itself. I'd look at what they've accomplished in those 27 years. This is no different than someone with 5 years or even 1. If someone only has a couple notable things in 27 years , then I'm not sure what they're bringing to the table. If someone has the same number of notable things in 5 years, then that speaks more to the level of work they're innovating at. In short, it's really about the meaningfulness of what they've done during that time, relative to the tenure. Tenure alone is meaningless IMHO. I've interviewed too many people who have careers longer than my life, who have basically just gotten by. I've also interviewed people who've done amazing things year on year. The latter are the people I seek to build out the team. The former don't add much, unless they're really rock solid devs who've stayed in top of things. But if they're just alright? Then why wouldn't I hire someone more junior when they're giving me the same results, for cheaper, and are usually easier to mold and train?