It doesn't matter how skilled a person is, or how much experience they have, in Silicon Valley you have a better chance of getting hired as a 20-something serial dog molester than a 50-year-old experienced tech.
And filtering out older people, while illegal, is so very easy to do to 99% of applicants by simply by looking at the year they got their undergrad degree.
Context matters a lot - such quotes are usually said in reference to a company's leadership team, and there's quite a bit of truth to them. When you look at the list of CEOs/Senior-Executives/Board-members at Fortune 500 companies, it's overwhelmingly middle-aged/old white men. I would consider that just as problematic as the age-discrimination that the article was referring to.
> assumed the speaker meant... I am guessing you are not an old person being subject to ageism...
> Context matters a lot
Yes it does, the context in which the statement is made, the person who made it and the context in which the statement is receive. Asking us to only consider on side of the communication ,and making excuse because in certain context the statement is not offensive doesn't seem fair to me.
> such quotes are usually said in reference to a company's leadership team, and there's quite a bit of truth to them
There is truth in any stereotype, that's why they exist. The usual issue is that they are alienating and non inclusive to some people.
> it's overwhelmingly middle-aged/old white men
And the prisons in America are filled with poeple who look like me, should i be okay with generalization on me about that. One thing that it seems that most leftist like me forget is that most CEOs are white , but most white are not CEOs...
> I would consider that just as problematic as the age-discrimination that the article was referring to.
Yes and the first step is adopt an inclusive language, and not make excuse we wouldn't accept on any other protected classes. The fight for diversity is won we get everybody on board. When we start to have a hierarchy of protected classes, some classes where it's kind of okay to discriminate against because X,Y,Z reasons then it starts to look like the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve
And i guess the most interesting thing is the amount the mental gymnastic we have to do to find this statement okay, instead of just taking the most plausible explanation... It simply reflect the latent ageism in our industry, and the fact that it is still okay to be ageist so long as it's directed at white men...
If someone could demonstrate convincingly that executive roles are being awarded out in a purely meritocratic manner, then demographic-imbalances might be excusable. But let's be honest - executive roles at mega-corps are almost always handed out on the basis of personal relationships and perceptions. I strongly suspect that in a purely meritocratic system, we would see far more diversity in the executive ranks.
It's also curious to see the extent to which many commenters are willing to accept the premise that old/white/men are being discriminated against in some roles, but not the premise that other demographics are being discriminated against in other roles. Is the evidence for the former really all that stronger than the evidence for the latter?
These things swing to extremes, but harm will come to some. There are still good candidates out there with mortgages, families, etc.
I'm self-employed now and don't expect to ever put myself into someone else's employ (that's my tip to everyone else in the 40+ camp... entrepreneurialism isn't a groovy lifestyle choice, it's the offensive measure to secure your future --- business startup and continuity risks notwithstanding), but the "we need diversity" bell is now mine to ring. That said, I used to dream of creating a startup, building a team, growing a business --- now the dream is zero employees. It's me and my (life) partner, and we won't take on employees if we can help it.
Is that problematic?
Tax system already penalizes those who are producing wealth in order to subsidize those who are consuming it.
I dont think most Libertarians want 0 government, but I believe most government is best served locally where people can actually have influence and oversight.
[0]https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/943248573222850560
Using your logic (only related to this portion of your post, because as you stated money, does in fact, beget money), one should not work hard for one's progeny to have an inheritance? Should estate law just be modified and have all assets of a dead person go to the state?
Inheritance is deeply ingrained in most cultures that I know of (so, western first-world cultures), but it had never made sense to me. Inheritance is pure unfairness.
And people far more versed in the economic arcanes than I am have the same opinion: see Karl Marx
Why not? Why should a dead person continue to exert their influence in the form of cash after they're done personally contributing to society? Why does someone deserve the fruits of their parents' labor? Do we also judge children by the sins of their father? If someone's money is transferrable, why not blame or shame?
I think your sin analogy isn't an apples to apples comparison nor does it make sense in this context. However I'll play devil's advocate.
If your father was a felon / committed "sins" then most people in society are going to be skeptical about how you might turn out. It's an unfortunate truth. Not to say you will be a felon but based on the environment you were raised in you have a statistically higher likelihood of becoming a felon / deviant. So yes, you will be judged by the sins of your father whether you like it or not. That's why people leave their home towns for to start new lives or change their names. I'm not saying its right but that's the reality.
Not to defend the quote, but I wonder how else would you characterize “non-diversity” in this context? Specifically, if their current workforce composition is indeed “bunch of 60 something old white males” then how else would you express your desire to be diverse without referring to the current reality?
In fact it would actually make them significantly more diverse if they were to hire some 65yo white males.
She should not have said "65-year old", as that is blatant age discrimination. And she should not have brought in the terms "white guy", as it is racist stereotyping. It seems like that recruiter is really out of touch with what promoting diversity in the workplace is about.
However, despite this, you cannot deny that the majority of people working in the tech sector are white or asian and male. That's just a fact. I feel like you are demonizing diversification efforts in the work place just because of one experience you had.
That old white guy you worked with will not have a problem getting a job in the future, eventually, unless he has some sort of character flaw that renders him absolutely unemployable. Hell, he already has a job right now, though on contract basis. Even just getting your foot in the door is much harder if he was not white and male. You just proved so yourself by saying you would have a job lined up for him and people of his demographic. You are acting like old white men are the victims here. They are victims, but only because of their age. Now you know what discrimination looks and feels like. This is why diversification is important. It's simply a protection measure to help ensure equality and fairness.
> She should not have said "65-year old", as that is blatant age discrimination. And she should not have brought in the terms "white guy", as it is racist stereotyping. It seems like that recruiter is really out of touch with what promoting diversity in the workplace is about.
I am glad we can agree on this
> That recruiter you were speaking of probably meant that they were looking to hire a diverse set of people, as opposed to primarily just 65-year old white guys (which she probably believes to be the majority demographic that you'll see in a stuffy corporate environment).
I am not sure what warrant this generous interpretation. All we have to go with is a a "Derogatory" sentence from someone not in the group (young vs old). She is supposed to be train to speak publicly on behalf of a big company. She is supposed to understand diversity a litle deeper than the average joe. I am not sure what she meant, but to me the "way" she spoke speaks also volume on our industry ageism. I don't think we would have heard this about either hispanics/blacks or women.
> However, despite this, you cannot deny that the majority of people working in the tech sector are white or asian and male. That's just a fact. I feel like you are demonizing diversification efforts in the work place just because of one experience you had.
OP is not denying anything, he did not even mentioned diversity efforts or anything of that sort. The article was about ageism, and his comment was related a story where is people supposed to be trained to look for diversity make "bad" comments on old people. He probably feels concern about it because he can see him self in the old guy in a couple of year, or simply the proximity with the guy in his story make him feel some sympathy for him.
"Straw Maning" "look at this old white guy suffering" into "you are denying the struggle of of all this other people" is bizarre and from my perspective show a lack of empathy. Then going on a lecture on diversity is not helping.
> I feel like you are demonizing diversification efforts in the work place just because of one experience you had.
He is not, he is showing a deficiency in our inclusiveness.
> That old white guy you worked with will not have a problem getting a job in the future, eventually, unless he has some sort of character flaw that renders him absolutely unemployable.
Doesn't this article prove otherwise ? You saying this is essentially denying ageism.
> Hell, he already has a job right now, though on contract basis.
Discrimination is more nuance than getting or not getting a job. It's about being pass for certain possition, it's about having to work harder for the same reward, or working the same for less reward. It's about like in this case someone having the capacities to be a fully employ but having to settle for contract work.
> You are acting like old white men are the victims here. They are victims, but only because of their age.
I am not sure the point of this is on a thread on ageism. there is so many thing wrong with this statement..
> I feel like you are demonizing diversification efforts in the work place just because of one experience you had.
Since we are sharing feelings. I feel like you trivializing other people experiences and trying to create a hierarchy of protected classes. We don't go around telling cancer patient about the pains of poverty or vice versa. We don't go around telling white women complaining about sexual harassment about black men being killed by the police or vice versa. We don't feel the need to compare and judge and contrast those experiences. We just accept them as the general suckiness and unfairness of life, offer help when we can, sympathy when we can't;
When we do so, we are alienating people without good reasons. People will naturally fell more empathy toward certain groups either by identification or by just shared experience, and that's okay. We don't need to lecture them just because they aren't focusing on the group we want to focus on. Ageism is a problem, if you don't feel strongly about it that's okay, but please stop telling people who do , that they should be focusing on something else...
Count me if you can. No, not to give me a job but to be your partner. I would guess that there are some really smart older people who are under utilized because of all perceived drawback of age( often by not very smart people). But smart people are rare - there are immensely valuable whatever their age may be.
If you're being oblique to avoid libel, it's worth noting that libel law doesn't care about whether nor not you name an entity. It cares about whether or not you've identified an entity.
Google has been identified.
Somehow, I don't think this one is going to get pursued ...
They are huge :)
It's possible that the report is true, but that the author doesn't want the consequences of unambiguous identification.
He could be 10 times more expensive than you. Did you consider that?
They won't accept work for less than premium wages, don't need to.
That being said, I admit that there is also another part of the population who is struggling and desperate for work at any price.
Last but not least there is the question of what is premium wage. In London for instance, a lot of folks over 30 moved to contracting where they can charge a good daily rate, without the hassle of whiteboard interview, overtime or politics. You'll see many companies (see the HN who is hiring) allegedly struggling to recruit at their great wages, but the truth is that employees have moved out to greener pastures for twice the money.
I must travel in lowly circles.
Like, cashflow at 50 with 3 kids is important.
Yeah, you've saved for retirement at ~65ish, but you have 2 kids in college with one on the way up, plus a mortgage, plus just regular life stuff. That's not an unreasonable scenario at all.
Like, do you live in a first world nation? Honestly, the paradigm changes a lot in the 3rd world and your confusion would be more appropriate in Chad or something.
(In Chad, average age of first birth is 18, so you'd reasonably be a grand parent by 50, plus cost of living is very low)
If you have kids before your thirties, they will all be +25 when you are 55. They most likely finished college, they probably left the family home.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670153.pdf
Edit: below, the table contents
Households age 55-64 with Households age 55-64
no retirement savings with retirement savings
Percent of house- 41% 59%
holds age 55-64
Median net worth $21,000 $337,000
Median non-retirement $1,000 $25,000
financial resources
Median income $26,000 $86,000
Home ownership rates 56% 87%
Percent who own a home 22% 27%
that is paid off
Percent with a 32% 45%
defined benefit planThen an additional 50% who have a home but still a mortgage to pay. The statistics don't say when mortgages will end, so we can't do any meaningful analysis on the majority.
There are more people on the low side, not WAY MORE contrary to your statement.
Which is to say there are some people who don't have their house paid off yet, but will have it paid off before they retire, and then live rent free (but with other bills and taxes). There are other people who will not have anything paid off.
That is the EXTREME minority of people over 50, at least in the US
>I admit that there is also another part of the population who is struggling and desperate for work at any price.
I would not say they are "desperate for work at any price." but most people over 50 need a fair wage for work, and by fair wage I mean a wage comparable to younger people as well
My dad was in fact laid off at 50. Everybody knew he was very careful to save a lot of money, so they always said "but you must have enough money saved away to retire by now". His response was always "yes, but I don't have enough money to get to retirement". In the 15 years between 50 and 65 his money is expected to double twice which makes a big difference to his retirement income. If he had started drawing at 50 would have much less money to work with. He needed a job to pay bills.
That is an assumption that may be invalid. Everybody is in their own private situation. Your assumption will be true for many but not for all. Many older folks may not need a top salary anymore and will take an average income for the pleasure of working with other fine people and doing interesting things. At some point in your life the career ladder will be less important than quality of life.
So, the only way that is even in the realm of possibility is if the kid was making $30K and the greybeard was making $300K. That's another benefit of greybeards: you get more bang for the buck simply because of the way salaries scale vs. performance that comes with good experience.
Costs is more than just salary. 5 weeks vs 2 weeks of hollidays, 401k, health insurance, etc...
More like 50% more or at most twice as much.
This notion that experienced developers, as a whole in the industry, are making x times more than junior developers is nonsense. Utter nonsense spoken by people who have no idea of what they're talking about. It's true you can find outliers for that kind of thing, and I'm willing to bet they are specialty cases.
Early in my career I would get huge jumps in pay when I proved myself at a project. Almost fifteen years into this career and I don't get those huge jumps in pay anymore after a successful project. Not because I'm not deserving of the praise, but I'm already paid well to deliver based on my experience. A junior succeeds and gets a raise; a senior succeeds and moves on to the next project.
Could I get one of these mythical 300k jobs? I know I can. I'm willing to bet I could snag a 500k job if I pushed myself. But that would require sacrifices I'm not willing to make, give up hobbies that I enjoy, and live in a city I really don't care for. A city that would eat up the extra income anyway.
I'm more than happy with my current job that pays well and I get to mentor juniors every day, which I enjoy.
In SF/NYC, juniors can start under 100k, seniors can go over 300k. Either number could go either way, let's not argue about who got what. The point is, there is a LARGE multiplier.
I recall one friend in London, in a junior position. Left his company because of bad conditions and bad pay. One of his last assignment was to interview some possible replacements. There was one senior guy 20+ years of experience that was great, the company made an offer for around double his own salary.
Do you know what happened? The guy declined.
Guess what we found out later? He joined another company that offered him around three times that double.
Young folks don't realize how expensive experienced folks can be.
I'm drawing the same salary as I drew twenty years ago. (Never mind adjustment for inflation. It's the same actual number of dollars.)
I have a clear enough understanding of my trade that I'm willing to buy my own tools when they save me time (keyboards, monitors, development tool licenses, VM service fees, etc).
This all works for me. My kids are out of college without debt. I've got some money stashed in 401(k). I wouldn't mind retiring, but my small-company employer can't afford to hire somebody younger and they've asked me to stick around.
All other roles for different ages I've ever seen has been based on experience and not age, and at the companies I've been that experience is only about 30-50% higher at the worst.
She emphasized that she was looking for diversity, because, as she said, "the type of people on the other side of the table from us are different than they used to be, and they don't want to be dealing with a bunch of 65-year-old white guys. So those aren't the type of people we're looking for." That's pretty much a direct quote.
I was at a small company before I went to grad school. The company began working with a guy in his sixties who'd been laid off for a while and couldn't find work, even though he had a ton of experience. We brought him in on a contract basis, and his role gradually expanded as it became clear that he had both excellent technical knowledge and great people skills. He became a mentor to me and helped me out a ton. He's objectively better at our profession than I am in multiple dimensions, but right now I could find a new job ten times more easily than he could.
I'd like to start a business in 3 or 4 years, and I'm seriously considering going out of my way to target people like him. It'll be my competitive advantage.