[michaelochurch]

I can't tell if the phenomenon of ageism in tech is under or overrated

It's bad in VC-istan but I don't think it's bad in technology as a whole. There are plenty of 50+ programmers at places like Google who are well-regarded.

The fear that many of us who are in our 20s and 30s is that the culture of age discrimination-- one that we, although young, really don't support, but that is inflicted upon us by the VCs-- will get worse in the next decade or two. Right now, it's not apocalyptic and most good programmers will be fine. The concern is that if VC-istan becomes the new normal in employment, ageism will be more of a problem when we get to 40+. Right now there are still a lot of good jobs for 40+ programmers at the Staff+ SWE level at places like Google and Amazon, but that won't be true if VCs acquire more power.

Everyone admits this is a problem, but HR goes on as if they're oblivious to it. And then you read about how they're dismissing candidates that don't have an adequate social media presence, and you begin to wonder why on earth these goons run hiring.

HR looks for reasons to reject people. They have to, because they get so many junk resumes. They cut for too old or too young or too long at the last job or too short at the last job. You need, whenever possible, to engage with people who are looking for reasons to accept people.

[memracom]

In other words if your career is in any way unusual, the HR folks don't want to let you in. They have no way to judge a resume by objective standards because they haven't got a clue about the work being done in their company. So they rely on hiring people who conform to some fantasy of what a modern company employee should be like.

[RougeFemme]

In my experience, the hiring managers have been the problem, not HR. I've been very frustrated by my managers' attitudes and expectations when trying to hire folks for my team. They've rejected resumes against my recommendations. And after interviews, they've declined to offer jobs to people that I thought would be great fits. And then they continue to complain to their managers that we just aren't getting quality candidates. Not true!!! And again, this is not HR. . .these are the hiring managers.

[allochthon]

HR looks for reasons to reject people. They have to, because they get so many junk resumes.

I'm a good developer at a good job and not that old. A few years ago I was in transition between a several-year volunteering engagement and work in the private sector, and the job search took a while. I got very few interviews at the time. I would have been an asset to any decent employer that hired me. I do not think the resumes I submitted were junk.

There appear to be structural changes underway that are making the job market volatile for a range of people, especially the long-term unemployed. I am not sure where it is all heading.

[michaelochurch]

I do not think the resumes I submitted were junk.

Not all rejected resumes are junk, but there's a flood of resumes from unqualified people who send out 100 per day.

It's like dating. The more damaged people engage in more activity, so you encounter a biased sample. If the good people send out 5 resumes per job search, targeted toward specific employers fitting their skills, while the unqualified send out 200 (in the hope of getting lucky) then you'll have a 40:1 overrepresentation of the bad.

You were probably a victim of the junk, because when there are so many junk resumes flying around, good people get lost in the shuffle.

There appear to be structural changes underway that are making the job market volatile for a range of people, especially the long-term unemployed. I am not sure where it is all heading.

Yes, that is very true. I don't know, either. In the next 30 years, society will need to establish a basic income just to be marginally stable, because there's no other way to pay for the periodic retraining people need as one job ends and another begins.

[drcube]

>because there's no other way to pay for the periodic retraining people need as one job ends and another begins.

Companies used to train people. I'm actually a basic income proponent for similar reasons, among others. But when you put it like that, why should the taxpayers foot that bill and not the companies that reap the value?

[michaelochurch]

But when you put it like that, why should the taxpayers foot that bill and not the companies that reap the value?

The companies won't foot the bill. They'll just hire very young people with the relevant training or send the work overseas.

Technology is more about job replacement than destruction. The problem is that few companies are willing to train people up. The world is unfortunately too big for there to ever be a real labor shortage (at least, in the next 30 years).

[anovikov]

No worries, it's quite clear to me that the VCs won't acquire any more power.

[michaelochurch]

Interesting. Why do you say that?