An Explanation of Agism that Makes Sense

[The Gorn]

I found this in a thread on Hacker News (via a posting on CrazyOnTap - I don't visit HN directly - too many douchbags as I explained in other threads.)

This explanation of agism in hiring practices is brutal but it makes perfect sense. This guy pulled it together well and I think he's right:

Here's the thing about corporate culture. Anyone or anything (a group, a project) that is judged to be not successful (regardless of reason, regardless of whether it's that person's or group's fault) is avoided like a corpse. What ageism is about is the (often unfair) negativity directed at people judged to have underperformed their age curve. In mainstream business, there's an expectation that a person will be in an informal leadership role no later than 32, be in an official leadership role (i.e. manager or executive) by 35, be a VP by 40, (S|E)VP by 45, and CxO by 50.

Here's where sciences and technology have an edge. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a non-managerial programmer, scientist, or mathematician at 40, or even at 60. The best tend to peak later (with a few notable exceptions) so most of them are just starting to do their best work at this age. I repeat, there's nothing wrong in technology with being non-managerial at 40. No one looks down on you for that if you're great at what you do.

Contrast: in mainstream business, if you're still at the analyst/associate level doing line work at 40, no one will want to talk to you. Most investment banks have one "adult analyst" (i.e. someone in his late 20s or 30s working alongside college kids who use "steak sauce" as an accolade) and his co-workers mock the hell out of him behind his back.

There is a catch: by 35, you have to be really good, and you should probably have more than one specialty in which you can out-perform 99% of the competition. By that age, it's not enough to just be talented; you need to come with a seriously formidable skill set. The upside of this is that in technology, working hard and working smart means you will be good. The technology career is quite volatile but it's pretty easy to have reliable, steady improvements in one's level of skill. This is a lot better than mainstream business (banking, biglaw) where people can be passed over for no reason at all.

I'll add to what he's saying:

He says: "There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a non-managerial programmer, scientist, or mathematician at 40, or even at 60." This is not correct. Not in the companies and management and owner circles I've been around.  Nobody expects to see an old programmer, for exactly the reasons the guy states. I don't think IT is any different than other lines of business.

But the rest of it - the stigma/stench of death thing/labeling as a loser - makes sense and explains a lot. Hire a younger person and avoid all of the issues.

[Richardk]

I'll second that. By the time I was in my mid-40's, I was fricking OLD but didn't see the big picture. All their busy-bees were 20-somethings and the ones in my age group were all management. Even if they could do the work, they didn't.

Coming in from the outside, it was OK that I was older but the youngster's would all snicker and talk behind your back. Also in my experience, I came in for a very specific and short term task while the kids all had long (years) contracts.

It wasn't much better with my "peers" either since they had their jobs to protect so they always found something wrong with you. You didn't follow their procedures or you're recreating code or they'd make something up. [One complainant was that I spent 2 hours adjusting a desk lamp. I just stared at the manager, turned on his lamp and told him to adjust away for as long as he could. He quickly got my point and sent me back to work.]

Why do they play these games? Are they so worried about their jobs or just immature? Even some management couldn't admit that they were wrong. Instead of focusing on the problem and moving the company forward, the focus is on their little piece of turf.

As an "old" consultant, you don't fit into the FTE structure unless you move straight into management.

As an "old" long term employee, you're damaged goods if you're still programming. Heaven forbid if you get laid off and pick up a 'survival job' while looking for a new gig. At that point, you could just as well be dead and have the same luck getting back in.

There are exceptions but that's been my experience.

[Walter Mitty]

When I was between 35 and 40, I ended up redoing most of my life.  I married, for the first time, late in life.  I got baptized.  I moved from one part of the state to a very different part.  And I switched my career from programming to database specialty, and from corporate FTE to independent consultant.  As an indepedendent database consultant, I didn't set the world on fire.  But I did survive comfortably in what I will call semi-retirement, for about 17 years.

All in all, not bad for a mid life kicker.  If there were people who snickered behind my back,  I laughed all the way to the bank.  If there were people who were still in the rat race, and were doing lots better than I,  well they have their dreams and I have mine. 

Over the last ten years,  that second career has collapsed, for a variety of reasons.  I'm still coping with the aftermath. 

Here are a couple of conclusions about the general discussion of ageism: 

If you conclude that the only successful career for someone in their 50s or 60s is to be in a leadership position, and that all non leaders are living laughable lives, there are only two alternative outcomes, both distastrous: 

Either you end up with too many managers or you end up with too many failures.  And this, I believe, is an essential problem with the rat race.  It's an individual problem for each person who is placed among "yesterday's men".  It also a societal problem, in that a society where most people end up as failures is severely dyfunctional.  A society with too many managers is simply unworkable. 

[Carrie Cobol]

Yup, the quoted explanation for ageism is irrational, simply due to the hierarchical command structure of most companies.  Not to mention how middle management ranks have been decimated by the layoffs of the last decade.  With the ultra competitive attitude of the business world, we're all losers in one way or the other.  Our society is very sick.

[I D Shukhov]

In a technical field like software development, theoretically at least , one *should* be better, and therefore more valuable, as one gets older.   I say theoretically, because a person has more years to learn the craft.

But those years have to be used effectively.  One does accumulate cares, that's true:  a family, sometimes.  But that's not the real reason why you don't see many 50+ programmers.   The real reason is  tiredness and burnout.

Tiredness and burnout are career and lifelong learning mismanagement problems.   In my own case, I usually do software maintenance work.  This is not enjoyable and I feel too tired and unmotivated after work to learn anything new.  I'm only doing it for the money.  This is a death-dealing position to take in trying to find quality and grow in your craft.

Maybe I'm imagining this, but does it seem like a lot of younger programmers *aren't* just in it for the money?   E.g. when they contribute to open source software...   When you have a family and a mortgage you make choices you might not make without those responsibilities.

A healthy work environment should support lifelong learning and best practices in the craft, which almost by definition means to make the work easier to maintain.

[Walter Mitty]

Carrie, 

Society is getting sicker because it is getting poorer.  It is getting poorer because so many individuals, companies, and governments are spending more than they take in.  The process of spreading the wealth that had been taking place when wealth was growing has now become the process of spreading the poverty. 

This is not likely to change soon.  When the recovery from the recent recession finally takes hold,  a revival of frugality is going to be the last thing that opinion makers suggest.  Instead, they are going to suggest that we all go on another spending spree so that we can all get rich.  You don't have to be Nostradamus to know how that's going to work out.

[ilconsiglliere]

I thought ageism was more basic than this. In the sense its about the coin and the fact you wont work like a donkey for nothing. All companies crave cheap young malleable labor.

When you are young and in your 20s you are quite idealistic most of the time and drink the corporate kool aid. You have been taught that if you work hard, get good grades, politic correctly the world is your oyster. What you usually find out by the time you are in your 30s is the world doesnt quite work that way. There are only so many management spots and the corporate structure is a pyramid so by definition someone is not going to go up.

One day you wake up that you killed yourself for some company, didnt get promoted as promised, didnt get the goodies so disillusionment with the system sets in. At this point you will accept what is or change jobs and or companies. You also swear to yourself that you will never do this ever again.

So by the time you get into your 40s you are hardened up, have seen it all at this point and know how it really works.

From a corporate standpoint you are a liability because first of all you wont drink the kool aid as you have been there, done that. Second because of your years of experience you want more $$. Third you usually have family issues at this point and lastly if you have not taken care of yourself you will start to have health issues.

[TRexx]

Don't forget that the age of your employees has a direct impact on your group insurance premiums.

[The Gorn]

If you conclude that the only successful career for someone in their 50s or 60s is to be in a leadership position, and that all non leaders are living laughable lives, there are only two alternative outcomes, both distastrous: 

Either you end up with too many managers or you end up with too many failures.  And this, I believe, is an essential problem with the rat race.  It's an individual problem for each person who is placed among "yesterday's men".  It also a societal problem, in that a society where most people end up as failures is severely dyfunctional.  A society with too many managers is simply unworkable.

I wonder if it's in human nature to want to have segments of society that you consider less than yourself, and that regardless of the law, some group will always functionally act as the underdog.

In the US prior to the civil rights movement it was blacks as an underclass. It was also women until the mid 70s.

Now the underclass is anyone who is older than the norm.

There's absolutely nothing useful about this age based segregation and classism. The standards of quality and depth in delivered work go downhill when you limit the acceptable worker pool to those in their 20s and early 30s. It's purely a set of institutionalized preferences.

Joel Spolsky is just as much of a condescending c*nt as I have always ranted, from that same thread:

The fact that Google's employees are young does not say anything or imply anything about the half life of a computer programmer. It's just one data point. Here are reasons why it is skewed:

* Fast-growing companies at large scale do enormous amounts of college recruiting. That's because the quality of the pool is much higher than the pool of out-of-work programmers... not because young people are smarter or better programmers but simply because the candidate pool includes a cross-section of skills, whereas the candidate pool of out-of-work programmers is biased to programmers who can't find work.

It's a self fulfilling prophesy: out of work == incapable of work. Incapable of work == do not hire. Do not hire == out of work.

It's probably always existed, though. Today it's very "in your face". When I graduated from college in 1980 I really did not know sh*t and I could not really do anything but I was courted like crazy by campus recruiters. Fast forward 15 years and it became a struggle to find good jobs/gigs, but I could do 100x more than recent grads. BUT I was then labeled as a loser because I was still a developer.

Don't forget that the age of your employees has a direct impact on your group insurance premiums.

Yeah, there are clearly functional reasons why age bias exists. However, the takeaway from the HN thread is that it's much more about expectations, closed club mentality, and stereotyping than it is about just the business aspects.

[TechTalk]

Well, I believe that it is certainly ONE reason among many. 

I noticed that some other posters have mentioned this already but here are a few other reasons:
* From a health insurance perspective, 50+ employees are expensive.
* A younger worker might be more willing or more capable of working long hours and on weekends.
* A young manager might not want a employee who is much older than he/she is.
* A younger person might more readily accept a low salary offer.
* The 50+ person might be deemed to not fit into the company's culture.
* The 50+ person might have a lot experience but not with the appropriate technologies.

While there are still 40+ techies still in the American workforce, my guess is that from a percentage of the workforce standpoint their numbers have probably dropped dramatically in the last ten years.  Advancing technology, COTS packages such as SAP, cost, offshoring & insourcing, etc. have affected all types of software developers in America.

In my own case, I usually do software maintenance work.  This is not enjoyable and I feel too tired and unmotivated after work to learn anything new.  I'm only doing it for the money.  This is a death-dealing position to take in trying to find quality and grow in your craft.

I have no data to back up my opinion, however, I believe that the majority of 40+ American software developers are contractors or they work for large consulting firms primarily performing maintenance work.  In those firms, management consultanting is deemed more valuable than the people who work on the technical side of their business.  I have no doubt that many of those workers are thankful to be employed while at the same time they feel trapped as well.

[The Gorn]

I'd rank the "braking factors" or resistance factors as follows:

1) Cultural fit or misfit is the top reason older workers aren't considered. Pure age based discrimination. This includes both the business culture as well as the manager not wishing to have an older report. This alone accounts for the huge quantity of resumes that are tossed in the trash.

2) Stigmatizing due to experience with older technologies. If I "learn Android development" I am inherently less valuable (in the job market, not in absolute terms) than a younger developer with no prior paid experience, learning Android. There is a concept of being blemished or tainted in this industry. A fresh sheet of paper with no skills is worth more than even an experienced person who is willing to learn.

3) Money - salary + insurance costs - of course.

I think the culture misfit factor is the prevailing reason. The other two are very important and are used as justification for #1.

[TechTalk]

The Gorn wrote: It's probably always existed, though. Today it's very "in your face". When I graduated from college in 1980 I really did not know sh*t and I could not really do anything but I was courted like crazy by campus recruiters. Fast forward 15 years and it became a struggle to find good jobs/gigs, but I could do 100x more than recent grads. BUT I was then labeled as a loser because I was still a developer.

Probably 70% of all economic questions can be answered with "supply and demand".  What type of work were you being recruited for upon graduation?  When you graduated, PCs were not really mainstream yet and I do not believe you ever did mainframe application development.  My guess is that you were recruited for embedded software development type of work.

When I graduated, the 286 and 386 PC was state of the art and older mainframe developers (who had a lot of experience) were highly valued or recruited.   Commoditization and age bias were not as big of an issue back then (at least not in my universe).

[The Gorn]

I was initially recruited for the semiconductor industry (remember, I have a BSEE.)

That is quaint, isn't it... chipmaking in the USA. We must not do that again, it would be building actual things. 

I later (3 years later)) transitioned to pure software, against high resistance from my managers.

[Origisaurus]

I wonder if it's in human nature to want to have segments of society that you consider less than yourself, and that regardless of the law, some group will always functionally act as the underdog.

Same thing, different slant.

Except for the pathological narcissist, it's hard to have high self-esteem in the light of the obvious evidence of one's own failings.  So it is easy to find some reason to look down on some others, and to enforce that opinion by actual discrimination.

[Walter Mitty]

It's a self fulfilling prophesy: out of work == incapable of work. Incapable of work == do not hire. Do not hire == out of work.

It's probably always existed, though. Today it's very "in your face".

When I was in my 20s it was in somebody's face.  It just wasn't my face that it was in.  I think the same is true for you.