Google Age Discrimination(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Google Age Discrimination
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-41451
117 comments
You spring chicken, you.
Regardless if it is true in this particular case, the real big red flag is in the final sentences:
> The lawsuit notes that Google’s Diversity webpage does not include age-related workforce data, despite disclosing data about other worker characteristics. Other tech companies releasing workforce diversity data did not typically disclose age data either.
The entire industry really trying hard to cover up the issue.
> The lawsuit notes that Google’s Diversity webpage does not include age-related workforce data, despite disclosing data about other worker characteristics. Other tech companies releasing workforce diversity data did not typically disclose age data either.
The entire industry really trying hard to cover up the issue.
Yes, this.
Everybody talks about diversity but nobody mentions age. For example Reddit CEO Ellen Pao declared to the WSJ that she is on a crusade to hire for diversity - yet not once does she talk about "age".
> She has eliminated salary negotiations from the hiring process because women often end up fairing worse in terms of pay. She has hired a well-known diversity consultant to advise Reddit. She has passed over candidates who are not committed to gender and racial diversity, according to the interview.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/06/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-...
Everybody talks about diversity but nobody mentions age. For example Reddit CEO Ellen Pao declared to the WSJ that she is on a crusade to hire for diversity - yet not once does she talk about "age".
> She has eliminated salary negotiations from the hiring process because women often end up fairing worse in terms of pay. She has hired a well-known diversity consultant to advise Reddit. She has passed over candidates who are not committed to gender and racial diversity, according to the interview.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/06/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-...
I expect that economics of many of these companies doesn't work with people doing 35 or 40 hours a week. Which means that all these castles are built on sand because this will catch up with them.
I don't understand where the idea that Googlers work tons of hours comes from. I work exactly 40 hours and have done overtime something like three or four times (as in, three or four days) in the five years I've been at Google. By 6:30, the office is a ghost town.
Maybe Mountain View is different, but the Seattle office has a pretty fantastic work-life balance as far as I can tell.
Maybe Mountain View is different, but the Seattle office has a pretty fantastic work-life balance as far as I can tell.
I question the suggestion that all engineers at huge companies like Google are pulling these massive hours. Secondly, that only people under x age will work more than 40 hours. Empty nesters start around 50 and are some of the most time flexible people you'll ever meet.
A quick glance at Google's profit per employee disproves that. After paying for employees and everything else, Google profits $270,123 per employee.
I'm not sure what would make you think that some of the most profitable companies in history are castles built on sand.
I'm not sure what would make you think that some of the most profitable companies in history are castles built on sand.
Mind explaining how you got that number? Not being snarky, just curious.
Yeah I'm curious too. I however looked up how many employees they had in 2014 (http://www.statista.com/statistics/273744/number-of-full-tim...), and their quarterly reports for 2014 (https://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:GOOG), and got that they profited in the ballpark of 13-14 billion, and had 47,756 employees, so their profits would be somewhere between 270 and 290 thousand USD per employee.
I'm not good enough at reading these quarterly reports to be surer than this :-)
.. and on that note, having the age data of 823 employees from payscale.com seems a rather small sample set for a company of ~50k employees. I also wonder what kind of bias the source introduces, ie. whether your interest in your salary is different based on your age (I don't know).
I'm not good enough at reading these quarterly reports to be surer than this :-)
.. and on that note, having the age data of 823 employees from payscale.com seems a rather small sample set for a company of ~50k employees. I also wonder what kind of bias the source introduces, ie. whether your interest in your salary is different based on your age (I don't know).
No idea how he got it but you can do this from their earnings statement yesterday [1]:
Free cash flow $3.69B, total employees 55,419
$66,583 per employee of free cash flow (that is simply money they deposited in the bank) or
GAAP Net Income $3.556B for $64,166 per employee in net income.
I believe the $270K/employee is long gone and won't be seen again.
[1] http://investor.google.com/earnings/2015/Q1_google_earnings....
Free cash flow $3.69B, total employees 55,419
$66,583 per employee of free cash flow (that is simply money they deposited in the bank) or
GAAP Net Income $3.556B for $64,166 per employee in net income.
I believe the $270K/employee is long gone and won't be seen again.
[1] http://investor.google.com/earnings/2015/Q1_google_earnings....
Googled it.
Thinking that only younger people work long hours is also a subtle form of age discrimination (and not true).
I'm sitting in an office at 6pm and everyone under 40 is headed to a bar. I looked around and things currently reflect the median age mentioned in the article.
I'm sitting in an office at 6pm and everyone under 40 is headed to a bar. I looked around and things currently reflect the median age mentioned in the article.
I expect that economics of many of these companies doesn't work with people doing 35 or 40 hours a week.
I doubt it. Google would be just fine if 99% of employees limited themselves to 40-hour weeks. People aren't productive-- not in the long term-- when pushed to work longer hours.
The age issue isn't about work hours; besides, I know plenty of older people who work quite a lot. It's about pliability, deference to authority, and not knowing what they're worth. There's also a bit of union-related fear in it. I think that the likelihood of Google unionizing is very low, but Silicon Valley's leaders are terrified of collective bargaining arrangements (even if they come in a form like the lightweight unions of Hollywood for actors and writers) and one of the best ways to prevent that is to avoid hiring older, seasoned people with the organizational skills and experience to pull it off.
Age discrimination also puts a harmful time pressure on workers. It encourages to take career risks (and, often, those risks are unwise for them) because, at least as things are presented to them, they have to do everything in the first third of a normal career or they will be cast aside. It's much easier to push someone into bad decisions (or, I should say, decisions where he'll defer to your expertise because he's out of his depth and scared) if you convince him that he'll probably never get another chance to be a founder, learn a new technology, program again, etc.
I look forward to the outcome of this suit. There's bound to be more gold dug up in discovery than there was for Ellen Pao. I hope it doesn't end in a settlement, because I want this issue to see enough air to set off a chain reaction and crush this age discrimination problem. After all, we're all going to get old.
I doubt it. Google would be just fine if 99% of employees limited themselves to 40-hour weeks. People aren't productive-- not in the long term-- when pushed to work longer hours.
The age issue isn't about work hours; besides, I know plenty of older people who work quite a lot. It's about pliability, deference to authority, and not knowing what they're worth. There's also a bit of union-related fear in it. I think that the likelihood of Google unionizing is very low, but Silicon Valley's leaders are terrified of collective bargaining arrangements (even if they come in a form like the lightweight unions of Hollywood for actors and writers) and one of the best ways to prevent that is to avoid hiring older, seasoned people with the organizational skills and experience to pull it off.
Age discrimination also puts a harmful time pressure on workers. It encourages to take career risks (and, often, those risks are unwise for them) because, at least as things are presented to them, they have to do everything in the first third of a normal career or they will be cast aside. It's much easier to push someone into bad decisions (or, I should say, decisions where he'll defer to your expertise because he's out of his depth and scared) if you convince him that he'll probably never get another chance to be a founder, learn a new technology, program again, etc.
I look forward to the outcome of this suit. There's bound to be more gold dug up in discovery than there was for Ellen Pao. I hope it doesn't end in a settlement, because I want this issue to see enough air to set off a chain reaction and crush this age discrimination problem. After all, we're all going to get old.
One tidbit in this article caught my attention and was particularly surprising. The median age for computer programmers according to the Department of Labor is 43. That seems perfectly normal for any random profession (the number for the general workforce appears to be 42), but is higher than I expect for programmers.
First off, it is a profession that has been increasing in importance and size in recent decades, I assumed that would lead to a larger younger generation of workers. Second, there is the industry perception that many programmers age out into other related careers like management. None of these assumptions appear to be bearing out in the numbers (although the median age obviously doesn't disprove any bias).
First off, it is a profession that has been increasing in importance and size in recent decades, I assumed that would lead to a larger younger generation of workers. Second, there is the industry perception that many programmers age out into other related careers like management. None of these assumptions appear to be bearing out in the numbers (although the median age obviously doesn't disprove any bias).
No, it just means the Hacker News bubble isn't representative of a whole industry. There are 100 Senior Java Enterprise engineers for every Ruby-suffocating-Moores-law rockstar here.
I gave you an upvote mostly because I think you'll need it soon!
Me too. Just another rockstar upvoting my fellow rockstars. /s
I'm pretty sure programmers age out of Silicon Valley due to the culture. I know a couple who are 50+ who ended up moving to the Midwest & East Coast because they simply couldn't find anyone willing to hire them in Silicon Valley but could get offers in the Midwest & East Coast still with relocation.
If you look at the sources for age data for Silicon Valley "gems" [e.g. Google, Facebook] they are all below the median.
If you look at the sources for age data for Silicon Valley "gems" [e.g. Google, Facebook] they are all below the median.
People retrain, especially when their car factory (or whatever) closes.
Java is one of the most used languages but you wouldn't know that reading HN. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index....
Java is one of the most used languages but you wouldn't know that reading HN. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index....
All that stuff you said is just all stereotypes. Outside of young, hip SV you'll see young programmers and very seasoned ones working side by side on a large variety of projects. My office has the age makeup of most any office you'll see anywhere - in fact, we might skew a bit older, I believe there is only 1-2 people here still in their 20s. I also work with many people who "aged in" - Its their second career. Second careerers seem to be the best at their job from what I've seen. At least the ones I've personally worked with. I have a great respect for the older people I work with - they are all just so smart, their experience really shows and is very valuable.
I've seen those stereotypes absolutely nowhere on the East Coast and I've lived in several cities in several different East Coast states.
There is some people on HN that seem to not realize that their experience being 24 working at a SV startup can be different from someone else's experiences. Especially the ones who talk about how many jobs there are in the industry. Because somehow if there are jobs in my town there must be jobs everywhere else too?
I've seen those stereotypes absolutely nowhere on the East Coast and I've lived in several cities in several different East Coast states.
There is some people on HN that seem to not realize that their experience being 24 working at a SV startup can be different from someone else's experiences. Especially the ones who talk about how many jobs there are in the industry. Because somehow if there are jobs in my town there must be jobs everywhere else too?
I couldn't find the Department of Labor's numbers, but I checked the Bureau of Labor Statistics' numbers, and it disagrees. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.htm
The median for Computer Programmers is 42.1. That isn't a big difference?
I clicked on your link. All of the programming related fields are in the low 40s for median age. Web developer at 36.5 is the exception.
Any 20-somethings working in tech, remember that you too will age. And what goes around comes around.
"And what goes around comes around"?
You make it sound as if it's a 20-something's fault for getting hired.
What do you think the median age of managers, HR employees, and executives are? They're the ones doing the hiring.
You make it sound as if it's a 20-something's fault for getting hired.
What do you think the median age of managers, HR employees, and executives are? They're the ones doing the hiring.
> What do you think the median age of managers, HR employees, and executives are? They're the ones doing the hiring.
Software engineering employees tend to have a lot more say in hiring than in other fields. I have not participated in a single interview process, on either side, where a single engineer expressing doubt about a candidate would not at least be seriously listened to and discussed. And sure, none of them are going to say right-out, "This guy's old!" But, if they are truly discriminatory, they will consistently find other things wrong with those candidates and overplay issues that they would normally not. And that kind of discrimination will play itself out over time into a skewed distribution of employees.
Software engineering employees tend to have a lot more say in hiring than in other fields. I have not participated in a single interview process, on either side, where a single engineer expressing doubt about a candidate would not at least be seriously listened to and discussed. And sure, none of them are going to say right-out, "This guy's old!" But, if they are truly discriminatory, they will consistently find other things wrong with those candidates and overplay issues that they would normally not. And that kind of discrimination will play itself out over time into a skewed distribution of employees.
Until we invent anti-aging tech!
I am a 20 something in tech, and I just don't understand the mentality that doesn't value the perspective that age affords. It just seems really stupid, like overwhelmingly stupid.
Even if a young person can hold as information as an older person does, I bet it's not as nuanced. There's a huge difference between seeing generations of people age and seeing the way culture moves across the internet. Socio-cultural shifts are not the same as generational, age shifts. And growing up in an economy of technological boom and prosperity is not the norm either.
People would benefit just from having the experience from a different perspective of how to observe the world, interpret information, and relate to it. I view my generation as one that is intrinsically linked with technology, and I think it blinds us to a lot of assumptions as to how we think the world functions, and I think there is a lot of stuff we haven't existed long enough to observe and become aware of. It's like an invisible divide. I don't know how much I take for granted about my perspective, and I don't know how much others take for theirs, but I know that often, I am rarely correct in understanding how other people think, and I know often, that there is so much more variance that exists, that doesn't get translated through numbers and words. It's like it disappears, but it affects the way one navigates and establishes their own existence.
Even thinking in terms of how a computer 'thinks' versus how people 'irrationally' think is a ridiculous and absurd irony. Judgment is overrated.
Even if a young person can hold as information as an older person does, I bet it's not as nuanced. There's a huge difference between seeing generations of people age and seeing the way culture moves across the internet. Socio-cultural shifts are not the same as generational, age shifts. And growing up in an economy of technological boom and prosperity is not the norm either.
People would benefit just from having the experience from a different perspective of how to observe the world, interpret information, and relate to it. I view my generation as one that is intrinsically linked with technology, and I think it blinds us to a lot of assumptions as to how we think the world functions, and I think there is a lot of stuff we haven't existed long enough to observe and become aware of. It's like an invisible divide. I don't know how much I take for granted about my perspective, and I don't know how much others take for theirs, but I know that often, I am rarely correct in understanding how other people think, and I know often, that there is so much more variance that exists, that doesn't get translated through numbers and words. It's like it disappears, but it affects the way one navigates and establishes their own existence.
Even thinking in terms of how a computer 'thinks' versus how people 'irrationally' think is a ridiculous and absurd irony. Judgment is overrated.
Maybe it's more about being a young manager & a little weak in the knees about managing someone older?
[deleted]
> Any 20-somethings working in tech, remember that you too will age. And what goes around comes around.
The sad thing is, they already know it. They just don't care. They think "Oh, that's 15-20 years away, what do I have to worry about? They'll have something sorted out by then..."
They don't realize that the next 10-15 years for them is going to fly by. Ages 1-22 feel like forever. It feels like a lifetime. Unfortunately, age 22-42 is completely different. Those years will fly by.
The sad thing is, they already know it. They just don't care. They think "Oh, that's 15-20 years away, what do I have to worry about? They'll have something sorted out by then..."
They don't realize that the next 10-15 years for them is going to fly by. Ages 1-22 feel like forever. It feels like a lifetime. Unfortunately, age 22-42 is completely different. Those years will fly by.
I'm a late 20-something working in tech. I recently accepted a job w/ Google (er... Adecco for Google) in SV.
I have read every scrap of reporting on age discrimination in the Valley that I can find. The idea that my age will be a detriment to me in the coming decade is viscerally real for me.
It is also mind-boggling that age discrimination would be going in this direction. In industries like mfg. and oil and gas, the gray beard is a sign of status. I would not be offended at ALL if I was beaten out of a position by an equal candidate 20 years my senior. I'd be honored to have similar qualifications.
Just a single anecdotal counter-point to your stereotype. "They" covers quite a few people in your comment.
I have read every scrap of reporting on age discrimination in the Valley that I can find. The idea that my age will be a detriment to me in the coming decade is viscerally real for me.
It is also mind-boggling that age discrimination would be going in this direction. In industries like mfg. and oil and gas, the gray beard is a sign of status. I would not be offended at ALL if I was beaten out of a position by an equal candidate 20 years my senior. I'd be honored to have similar qualifications.
Just a single anecdotal counter-point to your stereotype. "They" covers quite a few people in your comment.
Age discrimination worried me a lot when I was in my 20s, and I really don't get the feeling that most young people have some delusion that they'll never get old. Whatever is going on, I really don't think it's based on a general prejudice from 20 somethings toward anyone over 40. I don't have a cite, so this is just a hunch, but my guess is that age discrimination is more driven by execs who are the same age as the more experienced programmers, not from the younger programmers.
I'd be really interested to hear the facts of the case. From the article, the only evidence of discrimination listed are that he was rejected despite:
1. A recruiter thought he would be a good fit
2. Working at several well-known companies (IBM, Compaq, and General Dynamics)
3. Only receiving a single phone interview
None of those seem like they'd be at all indicators of discrimination. Recruiters often say anything they can to get candidates through the door, companies regularly fail people at the first phone interview, and none of those companies are ones I'd necessarily associate with high-quality developers.
So, I look forward to seeing what else comes out of this story, since I can't imagine a decent law firm would go this far without some more damning evidence that will be forthcoming.
1. A recruiter thought he would be a good fit
2. Working at several well-known companies (IBM, Compaq, and General Dynamics)
3. Only receiving a single phone interview
None of those seem like they'd be at all indicators of discrimination. Recruiters often say anything they can to get candidates through the door, companies regularly fail people at the first phone interview, and none of those companies are ones I'd necessarily associate with high-quality developers.
So, I look forward to seeing what else comes out of this story, since I can't imagine a decent law firm would go this far without some more damning evidence that will be forthcoming.
I agree. Based on this article the individual case looks super weak. Sounds like the email was too spammy "We want YOU!" (we'll actually we just want you to put your hand up so we can then decide if we want you). It doesn't take a genius to look at a resume and see work history and college graduation to piece together if they're in their 30's/40's/50's etc.
Disclaimer: I'm a Google fanboy, so feel free to discount this comment.
Google's interview process is a magical opaque box. You have no idea what happened. All kinds of people who seem like an excellent fit somehow end up getting rejected multiple times. And I mean excellent fit in the most cynical worse-case way possible. The "right gender", "right race", "right age", "right school". I interviewed at the big G back in 2012, did 2 phone screens, made it to the on-site, thought I did well... but no dice. It's like an f(x,y) then divide by z algorithm. X = You, Y=Them, but Z is generated by a random number depending on the zodiac sign of yourself and 2 random people somewhere on earth. You can do everything right, Z = 0 and segfault you're disqualified. Just gotta try again. Not excusing Google per se, but I doubt age-discrimination. They're just crazy like that.
Of course, I don't know all the facts and it would probably make a lot of people happy if Google made their interview process more understandable. Maybe G's HR should stop getting people's hopes up saying "“embarking on its largest recruiting / hiring campaign in its history,” and “you would be a great candidate to come work at Google.”
Just tell them the truth. "We're gonna interview you, then at the end you're gonna pull this slot machine and you better hope it comes up 7-7-7. Because that's basically what we do after you leave the building."
Google's interview process is a magical opaque box. You have no idea what happened. All kinds of people who seem like an excellent fit somehow end up getting rejected multiple times. And I mean excellent fit in the most cynical worse-case way possible. The "right gender", "right race", "right age", "right school". I interviewed at the big G back in 2012, did 2 phone screens, made it to the on-site, thought I did well... but no dice. It's like an f(x,y) then divide by z algorithm. X = You, Y=Them, but Z is generated by a random number depending on the zodiac sign of yourself and 2 random people somewhere on earth. You can do everything right, Z = 0 and segfault you're disqualified. Just gotta try again. Not excusing Google per se, but I doubt age-discrimination. They're just crazy like that.
Of course, I don't know all the facts and it would probably make a lot of people happy if Google made their interview process more understandable. Maybe G's HR should stop getting people's hopes up saying "“embarking on its largest recruiting / hiring campaign in its history,” and “you would be a great candidate to come work at Google.”
Just tell them the truth. "We're gonna interview you, then at the end you're gonna pull this slot machine and you better hope it comes up 7-7-7. Because that's basically what we do after you leave the building."
This lawsuit is exactly why most companies have opaque interview processes. Once you start providing feedback, especially if any of it is positive, you are giving leverage to a potential discrimination suit.
Actually, I totally agree. I'm almost sure that if any major corp gave out more info about how the final candidate decisions were made the number of lawsuits would increase no matter what. The reason being is that there is no fair algorithm for evaluating people. It's subjective and someone will find something unfair to complain about. They won't be wrong, it's just that humans judging other humans is a process doomed to faultiness & unfairness.
> The lawsuit says Google based its decision not to hire Heath on a brief phone interview, despite telling him in an email that the company was “embarking on its largest recruiting / hiring campaign in its history,” and “you would be a great candidate to come work at Google.”
I really hope the lawsuit doesn't go forward on the basis of a recruiter saying "you would be a great candidate to come work at Google", mostly because if you can get sued for not hiring someone after you say that then pretty much every single company on the face of the earth can be sued.
who hasn't used language like that when trying to recruit someone?
I really hope the lawsuit doesn't go forward on the basis of a recruiter saying "you would be a great candidate to come work at Google", mostly because if you can get sued for not hiring someone after you say that then pretty much every single company on the face of the earth can be sued.
who hasn't used language like that when trying to recruit someone?
It's class action, so to succeed do they need to show that this particular guy was discriminated against, or that some people were?
There's not enough information here. Just because Google says you're a good candidate does not mean that you're going to get the job. It just means you look good on paper. I'm curious how the phone interview went. What details were discussed? And experience means nothing. If your skill set doesn't match what Google wants then you're a pass.
Considering how many HN/Reddit people who have been turned down after phone screens have complained the interviewer never even read their resume, this is somewhat ironic (since it was a phone screen, it's unlikely you could even guess the age of the interviewee without one)
Are you saying you can't predict the age of someone without a phone screen and that a phone screen predicts age? I'm not sure how I would know a person's age by talking to them on the phone. Do people "sound old?" Not something I've noticed. On the other hand it is easy to know someone's age from their resume. If they graduated college in 1965 and have 20 years at two companies than you know they are pretty old.
Though now that I think about it, the other day someone on the phone asked me if I was over 21. When I said I was 32 she was like "oh, I'm sorry, you sound so young."
Though now that I think about it, the other day someone on the phone asked me if I was over 21. When I said I was 32 she was like "oh, I'm sorry, you sound so young."
No, he's agreeing with you. "it's unlikely you could even guess the age of the interviewee without one" ("one" referring to the resume).
He's saying that people complain about being turned down by Google after phone screens and say that the interviewer never even read their resume. For example maybe they applied for a sysadmin position and their resume was full of relevant experience and no college, and the phone screen leads off with a hardcore CS theory question.
So if it's the case the interviewers don't read resumes prior to phone screens, then the odds are low that they discriminated against this guy for age-related reasons.
However I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between - e.g. sometimes interviewers don't read resumes. I doubt it's an all or never situation.
He's saying that people complain about being turned down by Google after phone screens and say that the interviewer never even read their resume. For example maybe they applied for a sysadmin position and their resume was full of relevant experience and no college, and the phone screen leads off with a hardcore CS theory question.
So if it's the case the interviewers don't read resumes prior to phone screens, then the odds are low that they discriminated against this guy for age-related reasons.
However I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between - e.g. sometimes interviewers don't read resumes. I doubt it's an all or never situation.
Thanks! The wording wasn't clear to me even though I reread it a couple times.
Though people do talk about their experience on phone screens so that gives an indication of their age. But if the age was a problem you'd think they just wouldn't give him a phone screen (of course there is the aforementioned alleged "not reading the resume" too)
Though people do talk about their experience on phone screens so that gives an indication of their age. But if the age was a problem you'd think they just wouldn't give him a phone screen (of course there is the aforementioned alleged "not reading the resume" too)
Sorry, I was kind of in a rush, looking back, i wish i had worded it a little more clearly.
For the record, Google is probably the least ageist company i've ever been at or worked for.
For the record, Google is probably the least ageist company i've ever been at or worked for.
How have other companies you've worked at been ageist? In their hiring practices? Or job duties? I can't say I've ever personally witnessed any agism in my career (that I could identify) but my current job pretty much only hires entry level people. Not agism, its just that we promote to fill senior level positions then hire a replacement for the entry level person.
On the other hand, how many older folks in high tech feel the need to look younger, through cosmetic, styling or dress?
I myself have adopted a "buzz cut" hair style that minimizes grey. I would consider going bald. I know that I'm not the only person over 50 that does this.
I myself have adopted a "buzz cut" hair style that minimizes grey. I would consider going bald. I know that I'm not the only person over 50 that does this.
I'm over 40, but the only way people can tell is from the grey in my hair. I've been successfully compensating for that through my less-than-mature personality.
I cut my hair short because I look better that way. Not for any other reason.
Or go "silver fox", you will be upper management material!
> I would consider going bald.
If only I had a choice about that...
If only I had a choice about that...
I pluck the majority of the grey hairs in my beard.
Honestly, the more I work with older developers, the more I realize how much of an asset they are.
These developers have programming paradigms + design patterns down pat, after years of experience. Don't expect that with your 20-something programmer.
These developers have programming paradigms + design patterns down pat, after years of experience. Don't expect that with your 20-something programmer.
>These developers have programming paradigms + design patterns down pat
i think you've just tried to gravely offend us, the "older developers". :)
i think you've just tried to gravely offend us, the "older developers". :)
The difference is that a fair effort is (quite rightly) made to counter misogyny and racism while none (quite inappropriately) is made to counter ageism.
And while comments like "men are just smarter" or "whites are just smarter" are quite rightly unthinkable, ageist comments by major tech figures are not unheard of. Which actually amount to judging people by their appearance with some post hoc justification coming out of pop science.
But if I'm wrong, it could be demonstrated here. ycombinator makes wonderful efforts to counter obviously skewed demographics on other fronts. Perhaps ycombinator makes a similar effort to attract founders over 40?
Alas though I fear that this conversation will somehow prove too controversial to remain visible for long enough to discuss.
And while comments like "men are just smarter" or "whites are just smarter" are quite rightly unthinkable, ageist comments by major tech figures are not unheard of. Which actually amount to judging people by their appearance with some post hoc justification coming out of pop science.
But if I'm wrong, it could be demonstrated here. ycombinator makes wonderful efforts to counter obviously skewed demographics on other fronts. Perhaps ycombinator makes a similar effort to attract founders over 40?
Alas though I fear that this conversation will somehow prove too controversial to remain visible for long enough to discuss.
One of the problems most older employees face (and i'm 36, which in silicon valley, is no spring chicken) interviewing is that nobody wants to take a chance on them.
Let's say you work for a company that has "up or out" until a certain level (a lot do). Let's say they do that for reasonable reasons (IE i don't want to argue about whether this is a reasonable policy, it's not the point here).
Let's say you have a position to fill, and your candidates are a 30 year old woman with 1 year of experience and a 99 year old woman with 45 years experience (the fact that you were able to get two female candidates should make it clear this is a fake story in silicon valley)
You interview them both.
30 year old does okay. The 99 year old does okay.
Neither one of them would really meet the bar for any level above "up and out", and so if they don't grow, they're going to get fired. Let's say they have about 2 years.
Here's your problem: The 30 year old is just starting out. So while they aren't at the "up and out level" yet, there is some hope they may be in a year or two, and can demonstrate continuous growth until then.
The 99 year old has been at this for 45 years. If they haven't become that good in 45 years, it's pretty close to certain they never will.
Thus, the 30 year old gets hired over the 99 year old, but not because the 99 year old is 99, but because he hasn't grown to be good enough in 45 years.
Now you realize it's not about age, but often about years of experience vs what you've done with them, and that a guy with 1 year of experience has a lot more uncertainty and possible positive than a guy with 45 years experience. There is basically no uncertainty about where that guy will top out.
Let's say you work for a company that has "up or out" until a certain level (a lot do). Let's say they do that for reasonable reasons (IE i don't want to argue about whether this is a reasonable policy, it's not the point here).
Let's say you have a position to fill, and your candidates are a 30 year old woman with 1 year of experience and a 99 year old woman with 45 years experience (the fact that you were able to get two female candidates should make it clear this is a fake story in silicon valley)
You interview them both.
30 year old does okay. The 99 year old does okay.
Neither one of them would really meet the bar for any level above "up and out", and so if they don't grow, they're going to get fired. Let's say they have about 2 years.
Here's your problem: The 30 year old is just starting out. So while they aren't at the "up and out level" yet, there is some hope they may be in a year or two, and can demonstrate continuous growth until then.
The 99 year old has been at this for 45 years. If they haven't become that good in 45 years, it's pretty close to certain they never will.
Thus, the 30 year old gets hired over the 99 year old, but not because the 99 year old is 99, but because he hasn't grown to be good enough in 45 years.
Now you realize it's not about age, but often about years of experience vs what you've done with them, and that a guy with 1 year of experience has a lot more uncertainty and possible positive than a guy with 45 years experience. There is basically no uncertainty about where that guy will top out.
Is it legitimate to assume that someone with 45 experience who is not yet "principal" level is incapable of making "principal"? Aren't there lots and lots of explanations for them not being at that level yet?
I mean, that's a banal observation, and maybe this is too, but: the fact that there are persuasive stories we can tell ourselves about why we're better off not hiring older people (or [insert minority here]) seems like one of the big reasons why we make it unlawful to discriminate against them.
Actually, if you want to get into that side of it, one of the main reasons it's unlawful to discriminate against them is because they are more expensive to companies (health, pensions, 401k, etc). Because these are often the things that drive expenses at company, so they like to terminate them when they become too old.
The ever-growing aging workforce being terminated unilaterally is what caused most of these acts.
The ever-growing aging workforce being terminated unilaterally is what caused most of these acts.
I have no snappy answer to either of those comments. Thanks for giving me more to think about.
"Is it legitimate to assume that someone with 45 experience who is not yet "principal" level is incapable of making "principal"?"
IMHO, without any other knowledge about the person, it's reasonable to calculate it happening with a lower probability than someone else.
"Aren't there lots and lots of explanations for them not being at that level yet?"
As my father used to say: "At some point, potential doesn't matter, it matters what you do with it".
Why something happened is in some sense, irrelevant. They aren't at a level of competence you can hire them now.
In practice, i don't give a rats ass about their age. I rate a 99 year old with 1 year experience the same way I rate a 30 year old with 1 year experience. But I definitely expect anybody with 20 years experience, be they 10, 20, 30, 100, 1000, or whatever, to be comparable to the other people with 20 years of experience. If they aren't, i can't hire them at that level. So then i have to decide if i want to hire them at a lower level, which means i have to compare them against lower levels, which involves calculating predicted future competence, often against the people with less years of experience, to see if i believe which will be a beter candidate. At that point, yes, what you've actually done matters, not why you did it. I can't know why you did it, i can only know what has actually happened.
Honestly, i'd really like to understand why one would think the risk calculation of "conditional probability of guy who has been doing something for 45 years suddenly changing and becoming much better at it in 2 years" is somehow the same as "conditional probability of a guy who has been doing something for 1 year becoming much better at in 2 years".
Because i just don't see it, and am truly struggling to understand why one would think these probabilities are equal, outside of "it seems politically incorrect to say they aren't" and we wish they weren't (As I said, I'm getting older too, so i wish they weren't myself :P)
(Note experience means " in the job i want to hire him to do". So a 99 year old with 45 years experience as a math teacher is considered to have 0 years of experience as a software engineer, and i'd compare him against people with 0 years experience. So the guy with 45 years experience has been doing exactly the job i want to hire him to do for 45 years)
IMHO, without any other knowledge about the person, it's reasonable to calculate it happening with a lower probability than someone else.
"Aren't there lots and lots of explanations for them not being at that level yet?"
As my father used to say: "At some point, potential doesn't matter, it matters what you do with it".
Why something happened is in some sense, irrelevant. They aren't at a level of competence you can hire them now.
In practice, i don't give a rats ass about their age. I rate a 99 year old with 1 year experience the same way I rate a 30 year old with 1 year experience. But I definitely expect anybody with 20 years experience, be they 10, 20, 30, 100, 1000, or whatever, to be comparable to the other people with 20 years of experience. If they aren't, i can't hire them at that level. So then i have to decide if i want to hire them at a lower level, which means i have to compare them against lower levels, which involves calculating predicted future competence, often against the people with less years of experience, to see if i believe which will be a beter candidate. At that point, yes, what you've actually done matters, not why you did it. I can't know why you did it, i can only know what has actually happened.
Honestly, i'd really like to understand why one would think the risk calculation of "conditional probability of guy who has been doing something for 45 years suddenly changing and becoming much better at it in 2 years" is somehow the same as "conditional probability of a guy who has been doing something for 1 year becoming much better at in 2 years".
Because i just don't see it, and am truly struggling to understand why one would think these probabilities are equal, outside of "it seems politically incorrect to say they aren't" and we wish they weren't (As I said, I'm getting older too, so i wish they weren't myself :P)
(Note experience means " in the job i want to hire him to do". So a 99 year old with 45 years experience as a math teacher is considered to have 0 years of experience as a software engineer, and i'd compare him against people with 0 years experience. So the guy with 45 years experience has been doing exactly the job i want to hire him to do for 45 years)
I'm sorry to say you are making so many unwarranted assumptions and are displaying a huge bias.
People don't know things because they've never encountered them. People don't stop learning as they age, and the things to learn do not run out. What people have achieved or not in their careers is not your business, when you hire. You hire based on competence.
Assuming that people don't grow at 99 because they've been at it for 45 years is stupid and ageist.
In fact, it's perfectly equivalent to say "I don't hire women in their 30s because they'll want to have children".
People don't know things because they've never encountered them. People don't stop learning as they age, and the things to learn do not run out. What people have achieved or not in their careers is not your business, when you hire. You hire based on competence.
Assuming that people don't grow at 99 because they've been at it for 45 years is stupid and ageist.
In fact, it's perfectly equivalent to say "I don't hire women in their 30s because they'll want to have children".
"I'm sorry to say you are making so many unwarranted assumptions and are displaying a huge bias."
You seem really upset, and your argument seems almost entirely emotional.
"People don't know things because they've never encountered them."
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Could you explain how this applies to your argument?
If, after 45 years, you don't have a basic grasp of CS , and you were doing a CS job for 45 years, it doesn't seem likely to me you will gain one soon.
If you were a math professor for the past 10 years, yeah, i can understand that.
"People don't stop learning as they age, "
Whether this is true or not, after 45 years, they haven't learned any better than the guy with 1 year of experience.
"What people have achieved or not in their careers is not your business, when you hire."
???? I made an argument based on current skill level and likely future skill level.
"You hire based on competence."
Sorry, For lower levels, people hire based on both current competence, and likely future competence. Otherwise, nobody would get hired at lower levels.
Lawyers out of law school are incompetent. Firms hire them based on what their future rate of competence is likely to be.
Same with every software engineer out of college. Nobody hires for the long term based on straight current competence. It would make no sense (short term hiring, it often does).
Even if you were right, then they wouldn't get hired anyway, because they weren't at the level one would expect after being at it for so many years. That's what you seem to miss. It's your job to push yourself and grow. You can't seriously expect that if you haven't grown in 45 years, someone should take a chance on you expecting that in the next two, you are going to buck all that and grow.
"Assuming that people don't grow at 99 because they've been at it for 45 years is stupid and ageist." You haven't explained why. your argument above is 100% unpersuasive.
I'm not even assuming. I'm pointing out that they haven't grown. Whether they can or not is actually even somewhat besides the point.
They haven't. So either they aren't pushing themselves, or they can't. At some point, it doesn't matter. I don't want people that don't do either. if you suddenly decide, after 45 years of stagnation, you want to grow in your career, you can't expect everyone else to believe it is going to happen.
Let's say it was neither, and it was because they had a sick child for 45 years they needed to care for. I still can't hire them at a level the other people with 45 years of experience have. I can't know this, either. I can only make risk calculations based on the data i have. Your argument is "we shouldn't be allowed to make calculations about people". Which would make hiring essentially random.
If i can't hire them at the level they belong, i have to compare them against lower levels i could hire them at based on their current and future predicted competence. When you do this calculation, it does not come out in favor of the guy with 45 years experience.
"In fact, it's perfectly equivalent to say "I don't hire women in their 30s because they'll want to have children". "
This is a 100% non-responsive, emotional swipe for no reason. it's completely and utterly false in every way, and honestly, it makes me simply not want to have a discussion with you. So i'm out on this part of the thread.
You seem really upset, and your argument seems almost entirely emotional.
"People don't know things because they've never encountered them."
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Could you explain how this applies to your argument?
If, after 45 years, you don't have a basic grasp of CS , and you were doing a CS job for 45 years, it doesn't seem likely to me you will gain one soon.
If you were a math professor for the past 10 years, yeah, i can understand that.
"People don't stop learning as they age, "
Whether this is true or not, after 45 years, they haven't learned any better than the guy with 1 year of experience.
"What people have achieved or not in their careers is not your business, when you hire."
???? I made an argument based on current skill level and likely future skill level.
"You hire based on competence."
Sorry, For lower levels, people hire based on both current competence, and likely future competence. Otherwise, nobody would get hired at lower levels.
Lawyers out of law school are incompetent. Firms hire them based on what their future rate of competence is likely to be.
Same with every software engineer out of college. Nobody hires for the long term based on straight current competence. It would make no sense (short term hiring, it often does).
Even if you were right, then they wouldn't get hired anyway, because they weren't at the level one would expect after being at it for so many years. That's what you seem to miss. It's your job to push yourself and grow. You can't seriously expect that if you haven't grown in 45 years, someone should take a chance on you expecting that in the next two, you are going to buck all that and grow.
"Assuming that people don't grow at 99 because they've been at it for 45 years is stupid and ageist." You haven't explained why. your argument above is 100% unpersuasive.
I'm not even assuming. I'm pointing out that they haven't grown. Whether they can or not is actually even somewhat besides the point.
They haven't. So either they aren't pushing themselves, or they can't. At some point, it doesn't matter. I don't want people that don't do either. if you suddenly decide, after 45 years of stagnation, you want to grow in your career, you can't expect everyone else to believe it is going to happen.
Let's say it was neither, and it was because they had a sick child for 45 years they needed to care for. I still can't hire them at a level the other people with 45 years of experience have. I can't know this, either. I can only make risk calculations based on the data i have. Your argument is "we shouldn't be allowed to make calculations about people". Which would make hiring essentially random.
If i can't hire them at the level they belong, i have to compare them against lower levels i could hire them at based on their current and future predicted competence. When you do this calculation, it does not come out in favor of the guy with 45 years experience.
"In fact, it's perfectly equivalent to say "I don't hire women in their 30s because they'll want to have children". "
This is a 100% non-responsive, emotional swipe for no reason. it's completely and utterly false in every way, and honestly, it makes me simply not want to have a discussion with you. So i'm out on this part of the thread.
This is not news. Large companies deal with frivolous lawsuits all of the time. Until the case progresses we should ignore it.
On the other hand, as a 31 year old in a company of mostly 20 somethings and only 1 or 2 40 year olds, I welcome a discussion about age related issues.
On the other hand, as a 31 year old in a company of mostly 20 somethings and only 1 or 2 40 year olds, I welcome a discussion about age related issues.
Payscale age data, being based on self-reporting of the employees, obviously suffers from the selection bias. Older people are simply far less likely to spill their guts on a random website, be it payscale, facebook or what have you.
This is _a_ lawsuit, and it hasn't been won.
Let's hold our judgement, okay?
Let's hold our judgement, okay?
The title of the submission is pretty bad. The WSJ title is "Google Sued by Job Candidate for Age Discrimination"
Its just the judge that has to do that. We're actually free to draw our own conclusions. The evidence seems compelling?
From reading the article, is the evidence that this person was denied after a phone screen, or that the median age is 29? If anything it seems like the title should be "Google Sued by Job Candidate for Age Discrimination", which is the title of the linked WSJ article.
Why is there ageism in tech? Why don't companies want people that were part of the movement of personal computing? Many of the pioneers of the movement are still around, what is it about the industry that looks down upon their wisdom? We could learn a lot from them, why are they treated this way?
"Why don't companies want people that were part of the movement of personal computing? Many of the pioneers of the movement are still around..."
Even the pioneers of web development are getting on in years. If your job was doing web development 20 years ago in 1995, you're probably in your 40s now. (I'm in my 50s, and I got to work with the first IBM PCs and then years later with the first web software.)
Even the pioneers of web development are getting on in years. If your job was doing web development 20 years ago in 1995, you're probably in your 40s now. (I'm in my 50s, and I got to work with the first IBM PCs and then years later with the first web software.)
Why is there ageism in tech?
We're a colonized culture (see: https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/vc-istan-8-t...). There's ageism in the mainstream business culture that is sometimes called "MBA culture". Among them, it's generally assumed that if you're not an executive by age 40, you've failed.
True technologists don't think this way, because we know how skill-intensive programming is and how long it takes to get good at it. But as a colonized people, we don't get to call the shots. 40-year-old VCs fund 35-year-old founders (or younger) who hire 30-year-old executives and they bring in 25-year-old engineers.
We're a colonized culture (see: https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/vc-istan-8-t...). There's ageism in the mainstream business culture that is sometimes called "MBA culture". Among them, it's generally assumed that if you're not an executive by age 40, you've failed.
True technologists don't think this way, because we know how skill-intensive programming is and how long it takes to get good at it. But as a colonized people, we don't get to call the shots. 40-year-old VCs fund 35-year-old founders (or younger) who hire 30-year-old executives and they bring in 25-year-old engineers.
Listen, I'm sure this complete nonsense. I mean, Google has resource group called “Greyglers,” they clearly care about age. You can't make this stuff up =) http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html#tab=greyglers
Didn't they create that in response to the previous ageism lawsuit?
[deleted]
Does Google still give those technical interviews? I could be wrong but if this person got past Googles interview would then the other reason they may not hire them is the cultural fit thing I'm assuming
Tech like sports favors young people and discriminates against old folks.
In athletics, people reach a physical peak when they're young. Athletics doesn't care about age. It just happens that no one is at his physical peak at 65.
Tech is different because the abilities involved peak, for most people, between 40 and 65. (There are outliers who peak as early as 20 or as late as 70+.) In fact, the bizarre cruelty of tech's age discrimination is that people get pushed out of this game as soon as they're any good at it.
Tech is different because the abilities involved peak, for most people, between 40 and 65. (There are outliers who peak as early as 20 or as late as 70+.) In fact, the bizarre cruelty of tech's age discrimination is that people get pushed out of this game as soon as they're any good at it.
That isn't even completely true for athletics. In some sports the peak is reached at a point older than you'd think, and the decline is much slower as well. For example:
http://www.arrs.net/SA_Mara.htm
http://www.arrs.net/SA_Mara.htm
[deleted]
I think age discrimination laws actually hurt older workers because companies don’t want to hire them and incur the litigation risk. And after this case Google would probably think twice before deciding even to interview older people.
> Google would likely think twice before deciding even to interview older people.
What? You can't actively avoid interviewing people because they belong to a protected class. That is very much still discriminating.
What? You can't actively avoid interviewing people because they belong to a protected class. That is very much still discriminating.
I didn't say whether avoiding to interview older worker is discrimination or not. It's irrelevant. What I'm trying to call attention to is the likely actual (not intended, but actual) effect of age discrimination law. Also note, the earlier in the hiring process company avoids older people, the harder it is to prove that the law was broken.
> What I'm trying to call attention to is the likely actual (not intended, but actual) effect of age discrimination law.
If your logic holds, Google would actively not try to interview people at all, because Race, Origin, Gender, and Military Status are all protected classes with anti discrimination laws.
If your logic holds, Google would actively not try to interview people at all, because Race, Origin, Gender, and Military Status are all protected classes with anti discrimination laws.
How does this disprove what I'm trying to say?
Everyone is in a protected class. Everyone. Even white male Christan Americans. Sure they are less likely to be discriminated against but it surely can and does happen. And lawsuits can and have been filed. There was one the other day here on HN, a company was accused of favoring SE Asians over Americans.
Also despite what crazy MRAs claim the courts have been working to correct gender imbalance that favor females. I can think of a couple off the top of my head - a case that involved male military spouses having to prove they were financially dependent on their spouse in order to receive military benefits and one that involved social security surviving widows getting survivors benefits but not widowers. Both were successfully argued and ruled unconstitutional.
Besides your logic makes absolutely no sense - "I'm going to discriminate against a protected class to avoid lawsuits accusing me of discriminating against a protected class."
Also despite what crazy MRAs claim the courts have been working to correct gender imbalance that favor females. I can think of a couple off the top of my head - a case that involved male military spouses having to prove they were financially dependent on their spouse in order to receive military benefits and one that involved social security surviving widows getting survivors benefits but not widowers. Both were successfully argued and ruled unconstitutional.
Besides your logic makes absolutely no sense - "I'm going to discriminate against a protected class to avoid lawsuits accusing me of discriminating against a protected class."
Then they would definitely get sued for age discrimination.
I think it is much harder to prove age discrimination earlier in the hiring the process. E.g. when screening resumes. How would you find out the real reason when a particular resume fails screening? Thus the likely incentive for the company is to avoid older people as early as possible. This means older good candidates would fail screening more likely: in effect, discrimination.
It's so often forgotten that the intent of the law vs its actual effect could be in conflict.
It's so often forgotten that the intent of the law vs its actual effect could be in conflict.
The statistics themselves would indicate this. Which is why the lawsuit cites that the average age of a Google engineer is 29 vs the national average of 43. This does not bode well for them.
I've read about this sort of discrimination in many industries outside of tech. However, what I'm curious about is this: what is the likelihood that someone this age will retire in < 5 years? If that likelihood is high, I could see why a company would pass over hiring them (though I know how annoying this can be if you're in that age range and looking for a job).
I wonder if anything could be done to make hiring someone who is potentially near retirement more appealing to companies?
I wonder if anything could be done to make hiring someone who is potentially near retirement more appealing to companies?
However, what I'm curious about is this: what is the likelihood that someone this age will retire in < 5 years?
In terms of headcount, how does that differ from (for example) a 25-year-old leaving for another employer after a couple of years?
In terms of headcount, how does that differ from (for example) a 25-year-old leaving for another employer after a couple of years?
I don't think it does, but in terms of absolute numbers, if a hundred 25-year-olds are hired, how many will stay for > 5 years?
Because those ones will become extremely valuable to the company. Especially a company that has eg a 6 month ramp-up period.
Because those ones will become extremely valuable to the company. Especially a company that has eg a 6 month ramp-up period.
"What is the likelihood that a 33 year old married woman will become pregnant in the next < 5 years? If that likelihood is high, I could see why a company would pass over them."
Exactly. It is very clearly wrong for companies to act this way, but at the same time, just like your example, it is also pragmatic. Clearly there's a problem, and my question is: how can we fix it?
Stop assuming crap about people. Not everyone retires (and at all different ages) and not everyone gets pregnant and its pretty insulting to assume a candidate's life choices and make future judgements about them. Are you also going to avoid hiring young males because they are more likely to get murdered or get into a car accident? Or people in their 20s because they are likely to switch jobs? It's not even pragmatic, its just projecting your stereotypical judgements on others.
By the way, the fix was to make it illegal.
By the way, the fix was to make it illegal.
> Not everyone retires (and at all different ages) and not everyone gets pregnant and its pretty insulting to assume a candidate's life choices and make future judgements about them.
It's also insulting to charge insurance rates based on aggregate statistics, but that's what's done because it's effective, not because it's nice.
> By the way, the fix was to make it illegal.
Right, and that's clearly not working, so evidently more needs to happen. Writing angry comments at people on the internet isn't going to fix the problem.
It's also insulting to charge insurance rates based on aggregate statistics, but that's what's done because it's effective, not because it's nice.
> By the way, the fix was to make it illegal.
Right, and that's clearly not working, so evidently more needs to happen. Writing angry comments at people on the internet isn't going to fix the problem.
I'm 48. I'd love to retire in < 25 years, but that isn't looking financially realistic. There are legions of "older" workers like me.
Given that the average stint for employees at SF/SV companies these days seems to be about two years, I don't understand why these companies think older job candidates pose flight risks. It's certainly not that they're obliged to pay pensions.
Given that the average stint for employees at SF/SV companies these days seems to be about two years, I don't understand why these companies think older job candidates pose flight risks. It's certainly not that they're obliged to pay pensions.
48 is so far from 60 though in the context of this question that I'm not sure it's helpful. It's an interesting point.
Then put 58 as the age. If the average stay for an employee in SV is 2 years it means that you still get a worker with amazing experience for the average workers stay. You come out on top.
Even more, let's assume that this person doesn't retire at 60. In that case, the chances of being hired at a different company are even less, you you get a person with brilliant experience who will stay in the company 2-3 times that of the average worker.
Even more, let's assume that this person doesn't retire at 60. In that case, the chances of being hired at a different company are even less, you you get a person with brilliant experience who will stay in the company 2-3 times that of the average worker.
You can't count on someone retiring at a certain age. Many can't wait to retire and many can't imagine retiring at all.
[deleted]
So are companies now supposed to mirror the demographics of a population exactly? Maybe they should all move to small college towns so they can reflect the local pop more closely.
On the other hand it is curious none of the companies self reporting their diversity demographics included any age information, but then, age is not a protected class, as far as I know.
As tech jobs become the mainstream of jobs, it'll be interesting to see if the median ages of workers continue to skew younger than the workforce in general.
On the other hand it is curious none of the companies self reporting their diversity demographics included any age information, but then, age is not a protected class, as far as I know.
As tech jobs become the mainstream of jobs, it'll be interesting to see if the median ages of workers continue to skew younger than the workforce in general.
>So are companies now supposed to mirror the demographics of a population exactly?
Uhm, no, that is not at all the argument being made here. The argument is:
Google had a median age of 29 in 2013, while the U.S. Department of Labor reported that the median age was 43 years in the U.S. for computer programmers
Uhm, no, that is not at all the argument being made here. The argument is:
Google had a median age of 29 in 2013, while the U.S. Department of Labor reported that the median age was 43 years in the U.S. for computer programmers
That 43 year median age seemed really suspicious, so I checked with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.htm). (The Department of Labor might have its own statistics, but I couldn't find them). It's wrong, and higher than reality, but not as wrong as I expected.
The real number is 42.1 for "computer programmers", 40.3 for "software developers" (more than 2x as common), and 36.5 for "web developers" (less common).
The real number is 42.1 for "computer programmers", 40.3 for "software developers" (more than 2x as common), and 36.5 for "web developers" (less common).
"...based on the self-reporting of 840 Google employees..."
Yes but the OP wasn't questioning the accuracy of the data - in fact quite the opposite.
"Over 50 years old" is a protected class for employment purposes.
Which has gotten hairy in circumstances where employers have been accused of discriminating against <50 year old workers, or in favor of older workers.
Which has gotten hairy in circumstances where employers have been accused of discriminating against <50 year old workers, or in favor of older workers.
>age is not a protected class, as far as I know.
Age >40 is a protected class (in hiring). Only older than 40 though.
Age >40 is a protected class (in hiring). Only older than 40 though.
I hope Google gets cleaned out and set the example for the rest of the startup industry.
Worker Visa wouldn't be needed as much if older workers were given a fair chance in recruitment process.
I am sick of hearing tech industry boasting about their diversity. They mean diversity in color and culture. But when it comes to age, it's not a diverse environment.
Worker Visa wouldn't be needed as much if older workers were given a fair chance in recruitment process.
I am sick of hearing tech industry boasting about their diversity. They mean diversity in color and culture. But when it comes to age, it's not a diverse environment.
I have experienced it elsewhere though. This case was at Electronic Arts. They called me several times over a one year period (I must have received a fine recommendation from someone :-) and I talked on the phone to some of their tech staff - really fun conversations. I arrive in their Vancouver offices looking forward to my interview and it started right away when I identified myself to the receptionist, she looked at my greying hair and literally started to giggle. She showed me into a conference room with three developers and their jaws dropped when they saw me. Their interview process was the rudest behavior I had ever seen in a work environment. The interview, technically, was fairly easy. I had a fair amount of experience in game AI which is what they were interested in. I did enjoy a free trip to Vancouver. From my experience, if any company deserves to be sued for age discrimination it is EA.
It is obvious how old I am from my resume and consulting web site. (This occurred many years ago when I was in my mid 50s).
I have never complained before publicly about this - it felt good :-)