FaRKle0079
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 2,686
The article focuses mainly on the software side. I wouldn't say it's quite as biased on the hardware side, and certainly not on the process side. If anything we hate hiring people under 30.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The Brutal Ageism of Tech
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Right on the money. Some people don't want to go up to high and others know that they aren't suited for management. This is a good thing and yes it does add consistency to their work group. There is nothing worse than having people peter principle themselves because they think is best for their career. In the latter case it is actually disastrous for everyone around them and their future.
Megalith
24-bit/48kHz
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2006
- Messages
- 13,000
The people I hate most in the workplace are those who think they are entitled to high positions when they do shit work and oversell their skills in every way possible. They tend to be the younger ones.
It is not entirely ageism but it is more about kids who have zero other obligations and. Can stay overtime everyday and be worked to death but not care. If you are 35, you'd be less likely to give into this bs but the 20 something knows no better.
GaryJohnson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,053
Depends on the age of the people doing the hiring where you work right? Young people tend to hire other young people. Old people tend to hire other old people. I think that's universal across all employers. We all have a bias towards things that are familiar that we can relate to.
D
Deleted member 93354
Guest
And here's the deal, if you are paid as a senior engineer, and people are depending on your work, then you WORK the overtime like I do, no matter your age.
When I come home I help my wife feed the kids and put them to bed. Then at 9:00, when necessary and the kids are in bed, I work overtime.
Agism in tech is a well known issue. I have no idea what the age of a CEO has to do with getting a job as an engineer (never mind that tech CEOs seem to be quite a bit younger than the median age for CEOs, which is 55).
Keep in mind Steve, that not every engineer wants to move into management. What's more, if you're out of work (as many still are), you just want to get your foot in the door, and age matters. I can look around where I work, and we hire virtually no engineers over 40. I honestly can't think of anyone that old that's been brought in (though maybe they just look young).
The same thing was true 15 or 20 years ago. If you came from a COBOL background, you probably had trouble getting a Java, C/C++ gig. That's how this industry works. It's not new and it's very hard to prove.
Because the assumption is that by the time you are 40 you are done monkeying around as engineer and that if you haven't moved on/up then you are no good. Corporate life isn't for those who are content doing one thing forever, that's what government and small business is all about.
Happy Hopping
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 7,847
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/apple-google-hiring-conspiracy-bigger-initially-suspected-1441547
if you people think age is a brutal factor in silicon valley, then don't click the above link.
today at CNBC, Google, Apple, Intel, Induit and Pixar is rigging your salary as they secretly comes to agreement to rig the salary among them if you are working for them. The current law suit is $9B
if you people think age is a brutal factor in silicon valley, then don't click the above link.
today at CNBC, Google, Apple, Intel, Induit and Pixar is rigging your salary as they secretly comes to agreement to rig the salary among them if you are working for them. The current law suit is $9B
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
This is a totally separate issue and they haven't been convicted yet ... that said, if they did engage in collusion then they are screwed ... However, they will just resort back to non-compete clauses in the employee contracts (which is perfectly legal) and what they should have done to begin with ... they can also continue to voluntarily limit hiring among the larger competitors or change the compensation to more heavily favor stock options for important employees (which makes it tougher for them to leave quickly since options vest over a period of 5 years typically) ... also, none of the SV employees are exactly underpaid ... they just don't receive as much as they would like to (most of them are still in the 1% though ... this is another case of millionaires fighting with billionaires
)I also doubt you will see the full 60,000 eligible participate since this is an all in situation ... if you sign up for the lawsuit you will almost certainly never work in SV again ... some folks will want to take the payout and move on but others may enjoy their jobs or companies and aren't ready to jeopardize that by biting the hand that feeds them
What you are describing here is training and I'm all for that. I would see that people in various strategic positions are trained. If you don't want to move up, but your position is of benefit, then get trained with new skills to make your position even more beneficial.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
Agree ... as my first employer (Intel) used to put it, "You own your own employability" ... if you like what you do then you better make sure that you do it better than anyone else or offer capabilities that no one (or few others have) ... otherwise, it become harder and harder to provide value as you become more expensive (not just older)
FaRKle0079
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 2,686
Non-compete clauses are null and void in CA.
Also, none of the SV employees are exactly underpaid ... they just don't receive as much as they would like to (most of them are still in the 1% though ... this is another case of millionaires fighting with billionaires
Cost of living is MUCH higher here. $100k isn't much here (and isn't even a down payment on a mediocre house).
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
Maybe these companies should start thinking about Texas ... The People's Republic of Austin is nearly as liberal as California and the Texas labor laws would be more in their favor ... I think California is very non-competitive (beyond having some good schools in their state) ... besides Cali will soon become the second or third largest state (population wise) behind Texas and Florida so companies should get while the getting is good
Agree ... as my first employer (Intel) used to put it, "You own your own employability" ... if you like what you do then you better make sure that you do it better than anyone else or offer capabilities that no one (or few others have) ... otherwise, it become harder and harder to provide value as you become more expensive (not just older)
When I talk to the younger guys, I always bring up something I learned a long time ago and that is what I call being an employee-preneur. Like an entrepreneur, you take that attitude as an employee and apply it to your work. Own that shit, make it yours, make it gospel and let others know about it.
Truer words have never been spoken. I was considering a job at UCSC which would have paid 126k and it literally just wasn't worth taking because by the time you subtract state income tax (don't have that where I live now), sales tax (don't have that where I live now), higher property taxes, much higher real estate prices coupled with overall much larger homes (higher utility bills), it just didn't make any financial sense at all to relocate.
I live and work in San Diego and I wish that I could go back to work up in the NorCal area where I made 20% more than I make down here for the same work.
If you were smart, you would never relocate to California. This is the most unfriendly business state in the country, not to mention its own citizens. Horrible what we pay here in taxes.
Maybe these companies should start thinking about Texas ... The People's Republic of Austin is nearly as liberal as California and the Texas labor laws would be more in their favor ... I think California is very non-competitive (beyond having some good schools in their state) ... besides Cali will soon become the second or third largest state (population wise) behind Texas and Florida so companies should get while the getting is good
lulz, Texas and Florida have a ways to go before they reach California in population. We have nearly 40 million people living in this socialist shit hole.
Whats truly amazing about California is all the nitwits bitching about: the lack of water, the drought, the wildfires and the mudslides when it does rain.
Clue (free) people: IT'S A DESERT.
See also, Sam Kinison's take on idiots who move to an area like that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA
Clue (free) people: IT'S A DESERT.
See also, Sam Kinison's take on idiots who move to an area like that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA
FaRKle0079
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 2,686
The Bay Area (primary area of CA the article and our discussion is focused on) is far from a desert... I can't recall any big wildfires, or big mudslides in the area either.
Methadras said:
Yeah, but at least property down there is still affordable. Shit, I was in Temecula and Escondido earlier this month and a house that would go for 1.1mil in the Bay was only like $550-$650k there!
Except Silicon Valley itself receives 1/3 of all venture capital investment in the country.
Doesn't mater.
I live in California and I've lost out on at least one job due to an illegal, non-compete clause.
The hiring company even agreed it was not enforable, but they didn't want to be put in the possition of defending thier possition.
Unless you plan on getting a lawyer and suing, these non-compete clauses can still bite you.
So basically you agree with my statement. FYI, I've worked with great engineers that are 25 and great ones that were 55. I've worked with engineers that are great engineers, but not so great as a manager. Not everyone has a desire to sit in meetings 6 hours a day (or more)
Happy Hopping
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 7,847
I just can't see this clause "Non-compete clauses" to be legal anywhere?
and I know that w/ proper reason, a judge can strike out any contract you sign
and I know that w/ proper reason, a judge can strike out any contract you sign
Yeah I do agree, it's just that if one is in the corporate world then one can't really complain about being pushed out (or not hired) for engineering jobs if one is over 40. By law one cannot be discriminated against based on age, but that doesn't matter because hiring authorities can come up with approximately 40,821 other reasons why the older person isn't being offered the job.
There's also the issue that older people are often set in their ways and they are harder to integrate into a team if the older person isn't fully compatible from the onset.
I have been on several search committees where we didn't hire someone because it appeared to us that the applicant felt so strongly about something that they would not be able to adjust to the existing team. That could happen with younger people too but it's much more likely to happen with older people.
Here's another issue, and I say this as someone who's 40+, if you were a sys admin all your life, then you don't have a good track record of accomplishments because the nature of your work just doesn't provide that. Your accomplishment is that the systems you worked on worked. Whoop-dee-doo. How is that different from quite literally any other sys admin out there?
If you want to be employable at age you need to show that you took on progressively more responsibility, that you time and again delivered value to your employer by either saving them money or making them money above just being average. If you don't have a career progression, if you aren't responsible for budget and hiring decisions, then from an employers perspective you are just floating along. You do what's required, and maybe you do it well, but you do not excel. We don't hire average where I work, and neither do a lot of other places.
FaRKle0079
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 2,686
How did the hiring company even know about the previous clause unless you told them?
Unfortunately beyond the non-complete clause some tech companies have gentlemen's agreements to not hire each others talent as well as both having the same clause and know about it. Early-Nineties OC (California) game development this was a real problem.
FaRKle0079
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 2,686
So essentially the same thing that Google, Apple, Intel, ect are being sued for by the DOJ now. The system is slow, but it's working.
That'd make a lot of since in a world where employees work for the same company for decades. But engineers long ago learned the best way to improve your lot is to leave wherever you are now. I've literally seen people swap jobs and they each made more money as a result. Alan was hired by Company X and Kelly applied for his position at Company Y. The rest is history.
Happy Hopping
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 7,847
It call rigging the job market, it's highly illegal. It is just as highly illegal even for apple or google to do it. They are not above the law