I'm approaching 50, am employed, though I've found that the job search is a bit harder now-- particularly with bay area startups I saw a %100 correlation: If the interview as on video (eg: they could see the white in my beard) I didn't get a second interview. If by phone (no video) I'd get offers.

Also, last year in Austin I made exactly %20 more than I did in Seattle in 2000. Kinda sad-- up %20 in 15 years-- that doesn't even cover the inflation over that time period. (and I was making more than everyone else there, including some senior people.)

I've decided I need to switch to management, as it's time. In fact it's past time, but I have found that too many companies-- particularly startups-- don't promote managers from engineers, they want "biz guys" who don't understand software to be the "managers" way too often. (at least outside of silly valley.)

there was a news once about a 40/50 y.o. guy ( I think he was from UK ) who couldn't get a job as a manager in US because he was semi-bald. So he shaved his head entirely and found a good position in a flash. I need to find the link , this was an interesting story.

Look is important,unfortunately, but it isn't always about age, sometimes you're too fat, or not white enough ...

I remember that story, it was on the front page of HN back in 2012. The guy shaved his head, did a fashion makeover, bought the latest iPhone or whatever, and then on top of that had eyelid surgery with the goal of making his appearance more youthful:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/us-valley-ageism-i...

Before and after photos of Randy Adams (60) who I think was the one with the eye lift:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239277/CEO-Randy-Ad...

Original discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4838215

>"sometimes you're too fat, or not white enough ..."

Or black enough... Or female enough... Or Non-foreign enough (yes I got this one before)... All sorts of stuff, to be honest.

> white in my beard

What about tinting ("dieing?" sorry for not knowing the word in English) your hair? It's superficial, but if it lands a job, it's fair.

Thought about that, but found a situation before trying it. I think I will do that next time... which is kinda sad, cause really, my experience makes me really valuable.

But in the end, would you really want to go work for a shop like that? If they don't want you based on the color of your beard, then I wonder what "other" surprises lurk around the corner..

I'm in my mid-thirties, so please take that into an account. Also I know that these are the questions that I have to ponder in the coming years, so your insights are highly valued.

Very often these biases work at an unconscious level in people who are otherwise perfectly fine. Don't discount this effect.

If that's what would land a job you can keep it.

pay squash is why you should get out of field. engineering is the new proletariat, working at companies that rake in millions for pennies, while all managers above you get twice your pay just by organizing your time.

Engineering is certainly not a proletariat. Engineers make more money than most professions and have more interesting jobs as well as lots of respect from other professions (I am not an engineer and I can tell you lots of people admire engineers). Also, many professions experience "pay squash".

It's a myth that most managers make much more than programmers and that they "just" organize your time. Let's have a little bit of respect, not just for our own professions, but also for the people we work with.

not when compared to all other profession that require a degree, constant lerning and are higly specialized (each enginering branch is not interchangeable, as well as within the same branch specializing in one area reduces your employment prospects in others)

also, the majority of managers are not the one that are in charge, taking decisions, managing risks and settings directions; middle managers types are way more common. and I do respect those of them that work well, but they are so hard to find that I'll stand by the 'most' in 'just organize things'.

What professions would those be? Law and medicine are probably the two most people are thinking of.

Law does pay more for very successful people, but at the median it actually pays less.

Doctors do get paid more, but they also spend a much longer time in training. The amount of time that most engineers spend in training is more in line with the amount of time that PAs spend in training.

>"It's a myth that most managers make much more than programmers and that they "just" organize your time."

Well, instead of just saying it's a myth and relying on averaged stats in the industry to satiate peoples' curiosity/jealousy, perhaps we should just all be more open about how much we all make. I.e. let's not make it taboo and "contractually-breaking" to discuss salaries openly.

I know, yes, our current employment culture won't easily handle the strain of all coworkers knowing each others' and their superiors' salaries. But I have noticed the trend reversing slowly.

I suspect that sharing salary info will result in a gradual downward grind in salaries, as people are offended by seeing someone make what seems like big money for easy work. This has been the case with public school teacher salaries.

I also think that salary data, with no corresponding ability data, will be meaningless.

Salary data is already available at places like salary.com. You can see what people with your job title in your area are making for free.

I don't see the managers above really making that much more. In fact I made less when I was team manager than half my team when I worked for a big public corp. The C level does make a lot more and/or the owners do but not all the management in between. With tech knowledge, though, you can escape the squash by starting your own business fairly easily. Not necessarily easy to create a successful business but easy to give it a shot.

Yes, I believe this is more a more accurate assessment. I bet at most large and medium-sized tech companies, there's not a huge difference in compensation among rank-and-file employees (both individual contributors AND managers), with some managers earning more and some individual contributors making more. Probably no more than a 2X difference between what a junior engineer makes and what a senior engineering manager makes.

However, there's going to be a HUGE gulf between what they make and what the senior executives make--anywhere between 3X and 300X. That's where you go to escape the "salary squash".

Let's not confuse engineering with programming. Most programmers aren't engineers (don't have engineering degrees, aren't comfortable with physics / calculus, etc.) Real engineers generally don't have these employment issues as they age.

Programmers are 'engineers' in the same way that those with an MCSE are 'engineers' -- they operate a computer and employ a unique and useful skill-set.

No true Scotsman. What's an engineer? I'd argue that people who studied software engineering for four or five years, then became software engineers, count as engineers. The fact that they don't have much insight into physics is wildly irrelevant.

This varies with where you live.

In Canada, a programmer is certainly not an engineer. And for Canadians going for a TN visa to work in the US, programmers are not allowed. Usually they try to slip in as 'Systems analysts' or craft the job/acceptance letter to fit under an engineering discipline.

Software Engineers are engineers in Canada. A self taught programmer doing css/html is not an engineer.

I'd simply qualify someone as an engineer, iff they successfully graduated from recognized university from an accredited Engineering program. And a second possible scenario is if someone's managed to pass all the Professional Engineer's examinations independently (rare).

Not sure if one should favour 4 years in theory or 4 years in relevant work, for a programming position. For research, yes absolutely as it is straight carryover.

That's an employers decision, my post was not meant to comment on how well someone can program, given their qualifications. Best programmer I know does not have an engineering degree.

Not sure why I got down voted. A quick google search will reveal my comment is factual. At least in Canada where I'm from.

https://archive.org/stream/TNVisaForSystemsAnalystsVsProgram...

"Many people do not realise that computer programmers do not qualify under the TN Visa"

http://peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/2057/la_id/1.htm

"meet PEO's stipulated academic requirements for licensure (hold an undergraduate engineering degree from a Canadian Engineering Accreditation board (CEAB)-accredited program, or possess equivalent qualifications), and, if required, successfully complete any technical exams."

Can you study SE for 4/5 years and not have taken the standard physics sequence? Or did you mean not at university?

Here in Canada, I cannot advertise myself as a professional engineer without an engineering license. I'm not saying that this is the way things should be done, mind you, but being an engineer is a legal distinction in some places.

A big problem was that most bright engineers were promoted into management, so the ones left programming at 40 weren't so bright. So not so much that age killed the skills, it's just a selection bias.

I think we've got better at that and bright engineers are just being promoted into senior engineers, so hopefully it's fixing the selection bias.

"most bright engineers were promoted into management so the ones left programming at 40 weren't so bright."

Just wow. Quite a bit of agism there. In my experience most CEOs are not technical, and thy want "business guys" in management. This ranges from big companies (my manager at Amazon had a criminal justice degree and could barely operate a computer, and his IQ was less than 100) to startups (often the CTO will be technical, but also a founder, so there's not a lot of opportunity to become "middle management" during the startup phase.

It's the opposite of ageism. Try re-reading what I said.

Interestingly nearly all the guys over 40 I know who are "senior" devs never wanted to go into management. They just said "no!". They are solid reliable devs. They are all doing fine. But then again so are all the guys who went into management. (Sorry, I write "guys" all the time 'cause I grew up in the midwest - not trying to make it all about males)

I was talking past tense, as I said, things have changed. Does no one read here?

IMHO It's more usually bad developers who get promoted into management, so they can do less damage.

That wasn't so in the past. There was no great career track for developers other than management. This has changed onlly relatively recently.