[ajcodez]

Young people have more variable potential. If you hire a young person they might be 100x or 10x or 1x in a couple years. If you hire an old person you already know they aren’t 100x or 10x otherwise they would be above you in the org chart or retired. There’s nothing wrong with 1x, but preference for young people is common sense all else being equal. And it’s never equal in terms of salary expectations and extra effort.

[bachmeier]

If they're 100x in a couple of years (assuming such individuals exist) then you'll be paying them a hell of a lot more in a couple of years. What you're saying would be reasonable if they were signing employees to long-term contracts at a fixed wage based on current productivity.

[bojo]

Advancement is typically a pyramid, which means not everyone can reach the top. It is impossible for everyone to “be above you in the org chart or retired.”

[ajcodez]

You made my point better than I did. “Not everyone can reach the top.” Young people have had fewer opportunities to reach the top. Not being at the top is a negative signal that gets stronger every year.

[DataWorker]

There’s no room for those young people, so the chance one will be 100x, whatever you mean by that, is effectively 0. Young people are malleable and cheap. The majority of workers are never more than commodity labor. As the saying goes anyone can be replaced. That being the case cheaper and easier to exploit is what’s being optimized for. But they’ll let you think you got a shot at 100x, it’s how the scam work kiddo.

[dba7dba]

ONLY a kiddo would say something like

> If you hire a young person they might be 100x or 10x or 1x in a couple years.

100x?

[bojo]

Not being at the top is simply a scaling problem, not an opportunity problem.

[yowlingcat]

If your business is a financial equivalent portfolio allocation of too many lottery tickets and not enough stably yielding bonds and securities, you're gonna have a bad time. Predictably, many businesses run with such a naive mentality fold.

[yowlingcat]

Not to double comment, but the other completely fallacious part about this line of reasoning is a conflation of team productivity with individual productivity. Different beasts. A productive team with high cohesion will outproduce a team full of all-stars with low cohesion by at least 10:1, sometimes north of 100:1, but that's mostly because the team full of all-stars with low cohesion works _so_ poorly. One is dysfunctional, the other is not.

[mancerayder]

100x? One person doing the work of 100, is that what that means?

I'm jealous of whatever drugs are available in Silicon Valley, because even 10X sounds fantastical to me.

[mixmastamyk]

Yeah, a 100x person isn’t going to work on your crud or sharing app for long. Buhbye.