Silicon Valley's Dark Secret: It's all about Age

If you're young and sharp, programming looks like paradise. It's more or less a meritocracy, there's a ton of personal freedom, and you get to spend your days doing creative, challenging work and getting paid fairly well. You may not have even had to slog through 4-5 years of college.<p>You'll start to see the downsides as you approach 40 though. Many programmers can't play the social games that management requires, there's a limited number of "architecture" slots, and you're suddenly competing neck &#38; neck with people twenty years younger willing to work 60+ hours a week for half your salary. It's brutal but you've just got to knuckle down and do your best to keep up. Leverage your experience to learn new tech faster and <i>constantly</i> work on moving yourself upmarket technically. You've been in a footrace all this time but you may not have noticed it until now.

To the extent that this reflects material reality, it suggests that there is an arbitrage opportunity for anyone who can get a babyfaced twenty-something to front for a team of 30+ year veterans with deep domain expertise and 10x productivity. All you have to do is have the consultant bios note their WoW habits and 7 weeks of professional experience with Merb and Cucumber testing.

Management error #1: "Move up the ladder into management, architecture, or design"<p>As long as management insist on perceiving themselves as superior to other people, and assuming that technical competence somehow implies management competence, there will always be a drain on the good technical guys. The reward and recognition structure strongly encourages them to change discipline. However, can anyone cite me a <i>single</i> source that justifies this position? I'm not sure that any company I've worked for, of any size, really got more value from its middle managers than from the senior technical people it keeps trying to turn into middle managers.<p>The assumption that architecture/design is more important than front-line coding is also dubious. A good architect/designer is worth their weight in gold on a large project (just like a <i>good</i> manager), and to be sure you probably need a fair bit of experience to be any good at all in that sort of role. But that just means the low end of the scale for that role is higher, it doesn't mean the high end of the scale for front-line coding jobs has to be lower. All the evidence I've ever seen still says an expensive, high-end front-line coder is disproportionately productive compared to a cheap, lower-end worker. You can have the best project management and the best design in the world, but if all the guys implementing it are chumps, your project is still going to suck.<p>Management error #2: "Even though you may be highly experienced and wise, employers aren’t willing or able to pay an experienced worker twice or thrice what an entry-level worker earns."<p>That's because they're dumb... Maybe because they got too many technical people to do their management instead of people who are actually knowledgeable about and good at management? Project costs scale disproportionately with team size/structure. Developer productivity scales disproportionately with experience. How is it that so many companies can't do the basic arithemtic required to see the implications?<p>Management error #3: "This means keeping up-to-date with the latest trends in computing, programming techniques, and languages, and adapting to change."<p>This is not an error in itself. On the contrary, IME most older developers who are genuinely interested in their field do keep up (and find it far easier to do so than their younger and less experienced colleagues, since the tech industry doesn't innovate nearly as fast as the PR guys would like to pretend: older guys have seen a lot of it before, and can quickly identify genuinely new things worthy of further exploration and put them in context).<p>However, the error is in drawing this sort of conclusion based on the statement above: "To be writing code for a living when you’re 50, you will need to be a rock-star developer and be able to out-code the new kids on the block."<p>Almost <i>everyone</i> who is keen enough to still be coding by that age will out-code the new kid with his trendy tools and methodologies <i>in his sleep</i>.<p>BTW, I'm not an "old guy" in programming terms, and there's no bitterness here. I'm just a guy who watches this sort of debate from the sidelines, wondering how so many supposedly smart management people can be so utterly, obviously, incredibily dumb for so long, and still not get it in 2010.

Possible solutions:<p>1) Join a good big company like Google where experience is not disrespected. It is natural for startups to prefer good and cheap young engineers.<p>2) Face the reality, develop and respect soft (management, talk, people, emotion) skills besides pure coding skills. It is a fantasy that coding skill is superior to other skills. Everything is engineering: your job is solving-problems, not mere coding.<p>3) Start your own company and work hard on it at least once in your career. If it fails, you learn valuable skills other engineers cannot compete.<p>4) Beat the average. Going extra miles to become better every year (if not every day). You will be surprised how far you can go. Most average engineers will never go outside their comfort zones, thus peaked after 5 years into the career path. It means: contributing to an open-source project; writing a blog; creating several web applications; Learning new skills (Machine Learning, Web Design).

Counter-anecdote: I just got rejected from a startup because I was too inexperienced, despite having 4+ years of professional experience under my belt. They said there's no reason why I wouldn't be awesome, but I've just done too little for them to know for sure.

This is seriously noticeable in other places as well. For example Ottawa. The place is over flooding with vast quantities of old engineers from the likes of Nortel. They come into job interviews with most of their experience dedicate to archaic languages and platforms invented for and at Nortel.<p>They generally believe they are worth a lot and should be entitled to everything they had when Nortel was at its peak. Unfortunately, they don't have relevant skills and are generally outmatched by new grads in programming interviews.<p>I find it both sad and enlightening. Having been the young guy who interviewed a lot of these, I certainly feel like I have a good clue on how to avoid it (don't become a lifer at an big'ol company).

That's not just Silicon Valley's dark secret. It is pervasive in the industry.

This article fails to mention the most important factor, even more important than the money. Often people who advance to the management rank have the political skill or fund raising skill superior to their technical expertise. They simply don't what experienced engineers around who can see right through their bluff.<p>For the same reason the executives advocate immigration, they want ever greater supply of slaves to be discarded just when they start to understand the real game.

I don't get why someone who is older should get/expect a higher salary, all things considered. To me, it seems like this should be a free market thing. And by free market I mean on a global basis. On the other hand, I am in my late 50s, and I don't think that I have ever suffered from age discrimination (but who knows).<p>Experience over the last 14 years as a consultant, working with a few very skilled people in Russia, Brazil, India, Vietnam, etc. has convinced me that salary or consulting fees should be based on value provided, not location, age, etc. I offer a 60% discount when I work remotely because frankly remote workers are not as effective as having everyone in one location and I see little difference between myself telecommuting in the USA or someone equally talented half way around the world, assuming that people are willing to time shift their work schedule as needed. Age does not have too much to do with it either, except that I find myself unwilling to work long-term more than a certain number of hours per week - and this is probably common with older workers.

Is anyone willing to think about the opposite hypothesis? Maybe programming really is a young person's game.<p>You don't see a lot of startups full of old programmers dominating their fields. You don't see a lot of old programmers creating awesome open source projects. Not even from those who retired and have plenty of time on their hands. Many of the programmers who created great things 30 years ago are in positions to name their projects now, but what they've achieved since is less than when they were young and limited. Math and physics (the fields generally most like cs) show the same pattern: throughout history, most great work done by people under 40. None of this can be attributed to discrimination.<p>Certainly old coders feel as sharp as ever, with knowledge and experience tacked on. But how one feels is a poor measure of anything. Measuring overall talent is hard, and controlling for everything else so as to measure talent by age is harder. I haven't heard of anyone seriously trying.<p>It's a scary thought. Can anyone disprove it?

I thought that this was one of the better articles published via Tech Crunch lately. I would be interested in reading more articles from Vivek Wadhwa and highly encourage guest writers on Tech Crunch.

So, we should be taking care of our own career growth? Shocker.<p>Yes, there will be a point where your salary will not grow. But that salary is usually higher than most other skilled professions. (Note: this is an assumption; if I'm wrong, <i>that</i> would be interesting.)<p>My experience has seen very little "mastery" in programming; after about 5 years, most engineers hit about the same level of ability. (Note, I'm not saying you can't hit mastery of a particular thing, but that most don't do it.) Thus, there are only two kinds of programmers, skilled, and learning. If you don't gain differentiating skills after those extra years, why should you be paid for it?<p>Maybe this is the real "dark secret": most programmers don't know how to gain mastery of something useful to a business. Maybe this is what "we" should be worrying about, rather than hiring practices?

This vastly undervalues knowledge and experience. Maybe a graduate can compete in the day to day work of programming but over the long term of projects that extra knowledge and experience is going to help, assuming the senior programmer is constantly learning. It would be true to say programming in general isn't one of those professions where you can learn your craft and then spend a career applying it.

This is just the typical youth Vs experience dilemma. Older programmers - assuming that they keep up with newfangled trends - probably have quite a cushy time compared to other types of engineer, such as electrical or mechanical.

I think programmers should <i>plan</i> to retire by 40. Subsequently<p><pre><code> live on passive income become a entrepreneur become govt employee</code></pre>

It's really more about how long it's been since you learned new stuff. Lots of programmers in their 40s learned most of their skills writing Windows apps and, at least the ones I know, are very resistant to change. If you just looked at older programmers who are open-minded and still learning then the numbers might be different.

"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." --Oscar Wilde

Here's the real story:<p>First, the 'suits' want only 'fungible', 'compliant' workers.<p>Second, the 'suits' do NOT want any workers who might have some technical qualifications that might be powerful, compete with the suits, and scare the suits.<p>Third, likely highly experienced, older programmers can get good work via 'body shops' around DC.<p>Fourth, one common tech personnel policy is to hire people as young as possible, promote 1% into management, and fire the rest by 35. In this case, the person 35 would have been better off starting a grass mowing service at age 18 so that by age 35 they have had 17 years in the business, expanded to landscape architecture, have 12 employees, etc. Or generally a Ph.D. in EE will be better off at age 35 having just gotten an electrician's license and built a nice collection of local customers.<p>Generally, in a technical field, it's important to need a LICENSE.<p>Generally the big, secret economic opportunity now in the US is to exploit a 'geographical barrier to entry'. So do well in a Main Street business where anyone more than 100 miles away can't be a competitor and do well.<p>It can commonly be better for a person 18 just to join McDonald's, work hard, learn the business really well, work up to a manager of one McDonald's, manage also a second McDonald's for the same owner, and then have a heart to heart with a local banker about buying and running their own McDonald's. Build up to 10 McDonald's, run them WELL, and will have a better job than nearly anyone in a company a programmer might work for.<p>Fifth, a good programmer should start and own their own business. E.g., really good at Web site design and construction? Fine: Do such sites for companies in a radius of 50 miles. There, of course, need to meet face to face with the customer and, thus, have a geographical barrier to entry.<p>Sixth, have some deep technical qualifications, say, from grad school? Fine: There's nearly NO WAY anyone else will construct a good job for you. So, start and run your own business based on the deep knowledge you have.

I suppose programming as a particular profession may have this dark secret; I'm not a straight-up developer (meaning I'm an IT generalist who does develop but usually has some sort of hybrid job including mgmt).<p>However: I know lots of 50-something developers who have no problem maintaining employment and contracts. They are top-notch; their skills are current and their proven track record and accomplishments are what get them gigs. Companies want them because they're less of a risk -- instead of guessing whether the young guy will develop the right skills, they can take much less of a risk and get someone who's already proven himself.

Zuckerberg advocated age discrimination outright from the stage of startup camp 2007. Of course at his age, he doesn't know any better.<p>Here's a big secret, it isn't a struggle for older people to keep up with younger people. It is actually easier for me to pick new technology, or languages now than when I was a 20 year old programmer.... And I'm able to take responsibility for projects and order of magnitude more complex.<p>I always believed that when I got into the position of hiring people, I'd hire younger people because when I was younger the companies were all seemingly snobby about experience. But when I got into that position, I discovered that it was all about hiring people with presence, perception and perspective. Assuming the candidates can program, their ability to make good creative decisions is what determines productivity. Far more than experience sit any language. Any programming language can be learned in a short time... Perceptiveness is hard to teach.<p>These qualities themselves are too rare to waste time discriminating on age... These qualities, I think, are more common among older programmers, but there are more younger programmers interviewing....so I can't really say, and admit that is a prejudice. At any rate discrimination on any terms not related to doing the job is counter productive and stupid. I find someone with the qualities I'm looking for, I don't care about the age, or anything else.<p>The HR system in America is completely broken. Part of the reason is that nobody knows how to measure developer productivity on a corporate level. I've seen youngsters who put out huge amounts of buggy code praised which youngsters putting out slow, carefully designed code were told to emulate the "rock star"--- but it was painfully obvious that the rock star was slowing the project down by causing damage everyone ewes was spending a lot of time repairing.<p>Meanwhile, i once had a "recruiter" refuse to send my resume on a java position because the previous java shop I'd worked at had used oracle 8 and this new shop "is really looking for oracle 9 experience.". -- it doesn't matter what version of oracle when your job is to write code to process the data delivered by the db connector. But the company listed oracle 9 and she, who knew nothing about programming, felt she needed to screen out those who were unqualified. She was unqualified to do her job.<p>Almost never have I been on an interviewed where they actually checked to see if I was qualified competently. And universally the ones who did, didn't ask me to write code for them. Again, correlation is not causation.<p>But what we have is cargo cult HR - confusing experience with competence. It probably took 20 years to be a great machinist and you got valuable every years. You get more valuable every year programming, but you don't measure that value by whether someone knows erlang or haskal. Either one will do, even if your codebase is in erlang.<p>For me starting startup was one of those burn-the-boats decisions. I was a victim of age discrimination, after being hired, in face, I was let go for my age. Of course they wouldn't tell me that, and they wouldn't tell me why, but the said they'd give me a sterling recommendation. It was obviously age... And I vowed to never need that recommendation because I was damn certain I'd never leave my livelihood in the hands of another idiot who knew nothing about technology but thought he could manage programmers or a startup. I was happy to see that startup fail..... And so far, I haven't failed.<p>Age discrimination happens, and it is one of the profoundly broken things about our industry. When I started, i saw a lot of it happening to younger programmers. I saw zuckerberg advocate it public ally against older programmers.<p>But it is counter productive.... And a sign of being a bad work environment.<p>I suggest everyone take into account the age of the people at companies you interview at. Even if you are 20, if they don't have a single engineer in their late 30s, beware.

It is not about age itself, it all about <i>motivated, young software developers who will accept minimum wage</i>.<p>It is almost the same story as with foreign laborers, who will accept almost any terms, that are slightly better than at their home, and they already got motivation and taken risks.<p>Young, inexperienced people are much easy to manipulate and control, due to their naivety, lack of market understanding and inexperience.<p>The same practices are used on campuses, where some professors agitate students to get a part-time jobs or a test-task, with very low, or even no payments et all, while they're collecting the result and creating products for profit.

Age discrimination is standard: The subordinate is supposed to be younger. Period.

Also over the past 10 years, venture capital in Silicon Valley lost money.<p>Generally the venture partners do not know how to build significant businesses. Look at their backgrounds and see why. Compare with people doing significant work in technology for, say, the US DoD.

Seems to have missed 'sell your lifestyle to impressionable kids'

Does age discrimination exist? Yes. To the degree everyone fears? No.<p>People can't control their age so there is an inherent insecurity there. Combine that with a small amount of actual discrimination and confirmation bias; now you have a "dark secret".