[hjnilsson]

Don't know if this is the case in the US. But generally, mid-60s people are shied away from being hired because they will retire shortly. Investing in an employee that will be gone very soon is a thing few companies would do, and not unique to IT by any measure. The exception being when they have a need for her exact talent.

[huac]

Which will end first, the employee's career or the startup? Funny that this is a consideration given how short most runways seem to be.

[nickpsecurity]

That's a great point I haven't seen anyone else bring up. It's worth bringing up again in any discussion involving startups. Many barely last a few years. Who are they to talk about what an employee will do in the next 10 years lol?

Answer: "If you're good and VC's like you, I'll be working with you on your third startup by then."

[JonFish85]

How long do younger people stay at a job, on average? I'd imagine it's 5 years or less. In fact, I'd argue that a person closer to retirement might be more likely to stay longer than someone just starting out. The younger person doesn't have kids, a mortgage or roots put down, so it's much easier for them to leave.

[Lawtonfogle]

>How long do younger people stay at a job, on average? I'd imagine it's 5 years or less.

Yet if you admit that, it counts as a mark against you while being hired. It is one place where those hiring are outright ignoring reality, and instead prefer that everyone pretends we are making life long arrangements. Anything that breaks the playing pretend game counts against you; be it honestly stating you think there is a better chance than not that you'll have moved on in 5 years or being of enough age that the interviewer thinks you will retire within 5 years.

[kedean]

On the flipside, neither does a person in their 60's, most likely. Kids probably have all moved out, mortgages are probably paid off. As a person ages, they become more able to shift themselves, barring special circumstances like a sick spouse.