Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people complain about this, but the problem is straightforward. By the time most employees are 50, they are expensive and their skills are dated. As for expense, they want a lot of money and time off, and the subsidy business pays for their healthcare is out of sight. As for skills, most people let them atrophy. Basically, if you’re 50 and not a senior manger/C-suite/rainmaker, you are likely to be let go. If you are super-capable on the technical front, you may still be let go, but can probably get consulting work, but that’s it. The other alternatives are government jobs, retirement, take something below your last pay grade, or work on a passion project.

That’s ridiculous. I’m just as a capable as 28 year old who easily make $200k at most corporations and roles.

Most “skills” these days are so much simpler and more automated than when we were staring out, I learned python in a weekend, it’s basically the baby psuedocode they taught us before we had to learn a lower level language (where you dealt with memory addresses and trash collection on your own). There is a whole world of virtualization and other tools to build on, but a random 50 year old is at least as capable as a random 28 year old.

It comes down to people don’t like managing people older than themselves. Sort of like how some people don’t like working with women or different races.

I’m a software developer that’s pushing 60. In my experience the vast majority of older developers actually can’t outperform a 28 year old. That’s someone with 6+ years of experience out of college. They’re generally quite competent as they’ve learned some real skills. They might not have a lot of breadth, but are generally very proficient in what they’ve been asked to do. I love computer science and software development so I spend a lot if time learning new skills and keeping up to date, but most older developers don’t.

I didn't claim to outperform, but I have no doubt that the average matches the average. First off, you have survivor bias filter -- the ones who made it to 50 are people who have proven they can actually do the job, not just people who happened to major in the hot industry and used some relatives connections to land a job. Second, theres more than just raw technical ability to being a competent contributor -- and a mature worker will again have seen it all and hopefully avoid pitfalls. Third, you know they won't be chomping at the bit to get promoted to manager or whatever -- they have already shown their preference to stay at the IC level in the coding dirt.

I agree, if you have someone who refuses to switch tools or paradigms ("in my day, we hand coded in assembly and we liked it"), sure that might not be a good fit. But if they have the skills on their resume, even having a portfolio of work products, they still won't get an interview 9 times out of 10. And that is because we as a society are uncomfortable with old people by and large.

Our society only wants 35-39 year olds.
22-35 you are not experienced.
Over 40 you are old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people complain about this, but the problem is straightforward. By the time most employees are 50, they are expensive and their skills are dated. As for expense, they want a lot of money and time off, and the subsidy business pays for their healthcare is out of sight. As for skills, most people let them atrophy. Basically, if you’re 50 and not a senior manger/C-suite/rainmaker, you are likely to be let go. If you are super-capable on the technical front, you may still be let go, but can probably get consulting work, but that’s it. The other alternatives are government jobs, retirement, take something below your last pay grade, or work on a passion project.

That’s ridiculous. I’m just as a capable as 28 year old who easily make $200k at most corporations and roles.

Most “skills” these days are so much simpler and more automated than when we were staring out, I learned python in a weekend, it’s basically the baby psuedocode they taught us before we had to learn a lower level language (where you dealt with memory addresses and trash collection on your own). There is a whole world of virtualization and other tools to build on, but a random 50 year old is at least as capable as a random 28 year old.

It comes down to people don’t like managing people older than themselves. Sort of like how some people don’t like working with women or different races.

I’m a software developer that’s pushing 60. In my experience the vast majority of older developers actually can’t outperform a 28 year old. That’s someone with 6+ years of experience out of college. They’re generally quite competent as they’ve learned some real skills. They might not have a lot of breadth, but are generally very proficient in what they’ve been asked to do. I love computer science and software development so I spend a lot if time learning new skills and keeping up to date, but most older developers don’t.

I didn't claim to outperform, but I have no doubt that the average matches the average. First off, you have survivor bias filter -- the ones who made it to 50 are people who have proven they can actually do the job, not just people who happened to major in the hot industry and used some relatives connections to land a job. Second, theres more than just raw technical ability to being a competent contributor -- and a mature worker will again have seen it all and hopefully avoid pitfalls. Third, you know they won't be chomping at the bit to get promoted to manager or whatever -- they have already shown their preference to stay at the IC level in the coding dirt.

I agree, if you have someone who refuses to switch tools or paradigms ("in my day, we hand coded in assembly and we liked it"), sure that might not be a good fit. But if they have the skills on their resume, even having a portfolio of work products, they still won't get an interview 9 times out of 10. And that is because we as a society are uncomfortable with old people by and large.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people complain about this, but the problem is straightforward. By the time most employees are 50, they are expensive and their skills are dated. As for expense, they want a lot of money and time off, and the subsidy business pays for their healthcare is out of sight. As for skills, most people let them atrophy. Basically, if you’re 50 and not a senior manger/C-suite/rainmaker, you are likely to be let go. If you are super-capable on the technical front, you may still be let go, but can probably get consulting work, but that’s it. The other alternatives are government jobs, retirement, take something below your last pay grade, or work on a passion project.

That’s ridiculous. I’m just as a capable as 28 year old who easily make $200k at most corporations and roles.

Most “skills” these days are so much simpler and more automated than when we were staring out, I learned python in a weekend, it’s basically the baby psuedocode they taught us before we had to learn a lower level language (where you dealt with memory addresses and trash collection on your own). There is a whole world of virtualization and other tools to build on, but a random 50 year old is at least as capable as a random 28 year old.

It comes down to people don’t like managing people older than themselves. Sort of like how some people don’t like working with women or different races.

I’m a software developer that’s pushing 60. In my experience the vast majority of older developers actually can’t outperform a 28 year old. That’s someone with 6+ years of experience out of college. They’re generally quite competent as they’ve learned some real skills. They might not have a lot of breadth, but are generally very proficient in what they’ve been asked to do. I love computer science and software development so I spend a lot if time learning new skills and keeping up to date, but most older developers don’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes but don’t give up and target your search better. You HAVE to modernize your resume - remove dates on your education. List only the most relevant roles from the last 12-15 years. List only credentials that are relevant (and not obsolete in your industry). Update your LinkedIn to match. Use an AI generated photo. If your image is from corporate America in 1999 with a marble background, you look old. Remove obsolete technologies (ie Lotus Notes). I’ve looked at profiles of applicants and feel great about them and their experience. I’ve looked at profiles of applicants similar age who come across like a grandma. Have someone you than you give you feedback on both your resume and LinkedIn.

And then you need to research the company. I worked at a F500 where 45 was OLD. I moved to an industry where a bunch of people stayed past 60. Find a company where age isn’t a hurdle.

What about simplifying resume, the trend is fancy formats but parsing by applicant tracking systems and AI may glitch

https://www.overleaf.com/latex/templates/jakes-resume/syzfjbzwjncs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people complain about this, but the problem is straightforward. By the time most employees are 50, they are expensive and their skills are dated. As for expense, they want a lot of money and time off, and the subsidy business pays for their healthcare is out of sight. As for skills, most people let them atrophy. Basically, if you’re 50 and not a senior manger/C-suite/rainmaker, you are likely to be let go. If you are super-capable on the technical front, you may still be let go, but can probably get consulting work, but that’s it. The other alternatives are government jobs, retirement, take something below your last pay grade, or work on a passion project.

That’s ridiculous. I’m just as a capable as 28 year old who easily make $200k at most corporations and roles.

Most “skills” these days are so much simpler and more automated than when we were staring out, I learned python in a weekend, it’s basically the baby psuedocode they taught us before we had to learn a lower level language (where you dealt with memory addresses and trash collection on your own). There is a whole world of virtualization and other tools to build on, but a random 50 year old is at least as capable as a random 28 year old.

It comes down to people don’t like managing people older than themselves. Sort of like how some people don’t like working with women or different races.

I’m a software developer that’s pushing 60. In my experience the vast majority of older developers actually can’t outperform a 28 year old. That’s someone with 6+ years of experience out of college. They’re generally quite competent as they’ve learned some real skills. They might not have a lot of breadth, but are generally very proficient in what they’ve been asked to do. I love computer science and software development so I spend a lot if time learning new skills and keeping up to date, but most older developers don’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people complain about this, but the problem is straightforward. By the time most employees are 50, they are expensive and their skills are dated. As for expense, they want a lot of money and time off, and the subsidy business pays for their healthcare is out of sight. As for skills, most people let them atrophy. Basically, if you’re 50 and not a senior manger/C-suite/rainmaker, you are likely to be let go. If you are super-capable on the technical front, you may still be let go, but can probably get consulting work, but that’s it. The other alternatives are government jobs, retirement, take something below your last pay grade, or work on a passion project.

That’s ridiculous. I’m just as a capable as 28 year old who easily make $200k at most corporations and roles.

Most “skills” these days are so much simpler and more automated than when we were staring out, I learned python in a weekend, it’s basically the baby psuedocode they taught us before we had to learn a lower level language (where you dealt with memory addresses and trash collection on your own). There is a whole world of virtualization and other tools to build on, but a random 50 year old is at least as capable as a random 28 year old.

It comes down to people don’t like managing people older than themselves. Sort of like how some people don’t like working with women or different races.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't get an interview, it is your resume. How do people know how old you are if you don't list jobs from 20 years ago?

AI is trained to recognize things. I don't know the specifics, but think about a person who leaves off the early years of their career. Resume starts with a much higher level of job that straight out of college type job. That alone is a red flag for someone who is trying to seem younger.

I love reading people’s wildly inflated ideas of what AI can do and is doing. No, “AI” isn’t cleverly figuring out your age and then discarding your resume. Some not-well-paid human being is looking at 200 resumes in the “new” box, sighing, and skimming through the resumes at about five seconds each.

Signed,
Someone who works with applicant tracking systems

Anonymous wrote:Who will replace us- lazy Gen Z and millennials who just care about getting as much time off as possible, working from home and clocking out at 4:00 everyday?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people complain about this, but the problem is straightforward. By the time most employees are 50, they are expensive and their skills are dated. As for expense, they want a lot of money and time off, and the subsidy business pays for their healthcare is out of sight. As for skills, most people let them atrophy. Basically, if you’re 50 and not a senior manger/C-suite/rainmaker, you are likely to be let go. If you are super-capable on the technical front, you may still be let go, but can probably get consulting work, but that’s it. The other alternatives are government jobs, retirement, take something below your last pay grade, or work on a passion project.

That’s ridiculous. I’m just as a capable as 28 year old who easily make $200k at most corporations and roles.

Most “skills” these days are so much simpler and more automated than when we were staring out, I learned python in a weekend, it’s basically the baby psuedocode they taught us before we had to learn a lower level language (where you dealt with memory addresses and trash collection on your own). There is a whole world of virtualization and other tools to build on, but a random 50 year old is at least as capable as a random 28 year old.

It comes down to people don’t like managing people older than themselves. Sort of like how some people don’t like working with women or different races.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people complain about this, but the problem is straightforward. By the time most employees are 50, they are expensive and their skills are dated. As for expense, they want a lot of money and time off, and the subsidy business pays for their healthcare is out of sight. As for skills, most people let them atrophy. Basically, if you’re 50 and not a senior manger/C-suite/rainmaker, you are likely to be let go. If you are super-capable on the technical front, you may still be let go, but can probably get consulting work, but that’s it. The other alternatives are government jobs, retirement, take something below your last pay grade, or work on a passion project.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fed govt is your refuge. Old age and skill level not barriers

DOGE would like a word

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change your email from yahoo to gmail. Trust.

This is fire.

Anonymous wrote:Change your email from yahoo to gmail. Trust.