Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:
1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output
As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.
There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.
Disagree as they are constantly trying to use offshore ppl. I've seen good ppl given the ax or forced into early retirement in their 40s.
That's true, but I don't think that's age-related. I've moved 40% of my team offshore for cost savings, but I'm still hiring people of all ages in multiple countries.
So depressing.
I'm not sure why it's depressing to give people in traditionally oppressed and impoverished locations a chance at a good job and life, but okay.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GenX is about to become Madame President.
Yes, but she had to kick the old fart to the curb first, as he wasn’t ready to retire at 81.
So what is the lesson learned here?
nope, shes a boomer
shes a boomer
https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/08/14/sorry-but-kamala-harris-is-a-boomer/
Yep, JD Vance will be out first Gen X President.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GenX is about to become Madame President.
Yes, but she had to kick the old fart to the curb first, as he wasn’t ready to retire at 81.
So what is the lesson learned here?
nope, shes a boomer
shes a boomer
https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/08/14/sorry-but-kamala-harris-is-a-boomer/
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:
1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output
As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.
There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.
Disagree as they are constantly trying to use offshore ppl. I've seen good ppl given the ax or forced into early retirement in their 40s.
That's true, but I don't think that's age-related. I've moved 40% of my team offshore for cost savings, but I'm still hiring people of all ages in multiple countries.
So depressing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:
1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output
As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.
There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.
Disagree as they are constantly trying to use offshore ppl. I've seen good ppl given the ax or forced into early retirement in their 40s.
That's true, but I don't think that's age-related. I've moved 40% of my team offshore for cost savings, but I'm still hiring people of all ages in multiple countries.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:
1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output
As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.
There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.
Complete BS. “fast paced” really only applies to startups, large tech companies have processes and workflows like most corporations.
Current skills? Most older engineers can learn the new tech; going from old languages without garbage collection and hand rolling your own threads, versus todays programming which is so high level and abstracted that it’s more akin to operating an application than coding assembly. Sure they aren’t fresh out of college, but given the choice of laid off or spin up this new tech stack what do you think? And older engineers are way better at CM control, documentation, thorough testing, which means you will have fewer defects and likely cheaper more reliable development cycles.
As for “output” I suspect your metrics don’t look at delivered quality code vs speeding out lines copied and pasted from StackExchange or an LLM.
It probably comes down to lower pay and willingness to work long hours, which older employees will push back as unwise for delivering quality. They can’t just cut pay because then the ageism would be obvious. So even if an older employer would accept lower pay because of business conditions they aren’t considered because “entreat level” provides cover.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:
1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output
As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.
There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.
Disagree as they are constantly trying to use offshore ppl. I've seen good ppl given the ax or forced into early retirement in their 40s.
That's true, but I don't think that's age-related. I've moved 40% of my team offshore for cost savings, but I'm still hiring people of all ages in multiple countries.
Yes, not age related (it's cost) but I have to doubt you or others are hiring older people from the USA for tech jobs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:
1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output
As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.
There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.
Disagree as they are constantly trying to use offshore ppl. I've seen good ppl given the ax or forced into early retirement in their 40s.
That's true, but I don't think that's age-related. I've moved 40% of my team offshore for cost savings, but I'm still hiring people of all ages in multiple countries.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:
1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output
As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.
There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.
Complete BS. “fast paced” really only applies to startups, large tech companies have processes and workflows like most corporations.
Current skills? Most older engineers can learn the new tech; going from old languages without garbage collection and hand rolling your own threads, versus todays programming which is so high level and abstracted that it’s more akin to operating an application than coding assembly. Sure they aren’t fresh out of college, but given the choice of laid off or spin up this new tech stack what do you think? And older engineers are way better at CM control, documentation, thorough testing, which means you will have fewer defects and likely cheaper more reliable development cycles.
As for “output” I suspect your metrics don’t look at delivered quality code vs speeding out lines copied and pasted from StackExchange or an LLM.
It probably comes down to lower pay and willingness to work long hours, which older employees will push back as unwise for delivering quality. They can’t just cut pay because then the ageism would be obvious. So even if an older employer would accept lower pay because of business conditions they aren’t considered because “entreat level” provides cover.
" And older engineers are way better at CM control, documentation, thorough testing, which means you will have fewer defects and likely cheaper more reliable development cycles."
unfortunately this is being done by young engineers using ai, my teen uses ai to do all that and can focus on ideas vs manual labarous tasks like this and low level coding
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GenX is about to become Madame President.
Yes, but she had to kick the old fart to the curb first, as he wasn’t ready to retire at 81.
So what is the lesson learned here?
nope, shes a boomer
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GenX is about to become Madame President.
Yes, but she had to kick the old fart to the curb first, as he wasn’t ready to retire at 81.
So what is the lesson learned here?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:
1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output
As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.
There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.
Complete BS. “fast paced” really only applies to startups, large tech companies have processes and workflows like most corporations.
Current skills? Most older engineers can learn the new tech; going from old languages without garbage collection and hand rolling your own threads, versus todays programming which is so high level and abstracted that it’s more akin to operating an application than coding assembly. Sure they aren’t fresh out of college, but given the choice of laid off or spin up this new tech stack what do you think? And older engineers are way better at CM control, documentation, thorough testing, which means you will have fewer defects and likely cheaper more reliable development cycles.
As for “output” I suspect your metrics don’t look at delivered quality code vs speeding out lines copied and pasted from StackExchange or an LLM.
It probably comes down to lower pay and willingness to work long hours, which older employees will push back as unwise for delivering quality. They can’t just cut pay because then the ageism would be obvious. So even if an older employer would accept lower pay because of business conditions they aren’t considered because “entreat level” provides cover.
Anonymous wrote:Tech isn't inherently ageist, IMO. It's a field that:
1) is fast paced
2) rewards current skills
3) rewards demonstrable output
As we age (myself included), fewer of us have the energy or inclination to meet those criteria. Hell, I didn't want to keep pace with emerging tech 5 years into my career, let alone 20. Layer on top of that the demands of middle-age - families, aging parents, life in general - and there's a disconnect between the demands of the industry and what some aging people are able to deliver.
There are PLENTY of 50, 60, 70 year olds in tech. But, as a percentage, they drop off over time because of the above.