Silicon Valley's brutal ageism

[buenos]

Originally Posted by otterprods

Sure, I'll agree with that… But the number of years that a person has been doing similar work would certainly be an important part of the "data", right? Not all of it, but part of it. I don't think anyone on here has suggested that some # of years of experience listed in a resume is any substitute for quality interviewing, checking references, or other tangible metrics. No matter what there's always a chance that the candidate might not work out, but that has nothing to do with ageism.

I don't think it is a part of that data at all.
The other thing is they apply age cutoff FIRST, only AFTER they check the track record and skills, only to sort out some bad apples who failed to learn much.
In some cases (that I have seen), they don't check track record or tests, only years of employment and list of employers.

[otterprods]

Originally Posted by buenos

I don't think it is a part of that data at all.

Now it sounds like you've got some particular idea of what I'm saying in your head and are disagreeing with whatever I say just to make your own point. Am I right?

Ok, what if someone has 0 years (or 0 days) experience at some highly technical job for which they are applying? Do you still think an interview and some tests are going to be just fine for finding the right person to replace the guru who just left? I'd want to see some years of practical experience on there in addition to whatever he/she said she learned in school or from uncle Mo. Not necessarily 30, or even 10, but probably more than 1. Years of experience alone do not automatically make someone the best applicant, and they may not be the most important factor. But if you truly believe they are no factor at all, that makes this whole discussion seem pretty pointless to me.

[bigdumbgod]

Kind of sad to think 20 or so years of toil might well add up to nothing for any given employee. Dedication and loyalty are kind of a nice thing, no? Gives an employer piece of mind knowing somebody will show up tomorrow, and the next day, next week...

[buenos]

Originally Posted by otterprods

Now it sounds like you've got some particular idea of what I'm saying in your head and are disagreeing with whatever I say just to make your own point. Am I right?

Ok, what if someone has 0 years (or 0 days) experience at some highly technical job for which they are applying? Do you still think an interview and some tests are going to be just fine for finding the right person to replace the guru who just left? I'd want to see some years of practical experience on there in addition to whatever he/she said she learned in school or from uncle Mo. Not necessarily 30, or even 10, but probably more than 1. Years of experience alone do not automatically make someone the best applicant, and they may not be the most important factor. But if you truly believe they are no factor at all, that makes this whole discussion seem pretty pointless to me.

Actually I think exactly that. By the time I have graduated I have completed about 45 differnet board designs successfully, some were very complex. The system granted me "0 year of experience", while I knew 40-50 yo engineers who never designed such complex boards that I already have. Then in my first job I had a lot of stuff to teach to the older colleagues, even from the beginning. This is what HR meat processing plants consider a glitch and ignore. So, yes, testing/interviewing without cutoff would make a lot of sense.
The other end of the scale: 20 years of employment where the last few years was in a "design engineer" position, means that there are several companies who automatically hire them, no hard questions asked at all.

[jbunniii]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Kind of sad to think 20 or so years of toil might well add up to nothing for any given employee.

Hopefully it didn't literally add up to nothing. Surely most people try to squirrel away some savings over 20 years of working?

Living below one's means is always a good idea, and maybe that much more important for tech workers...

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by jbunniii

Hopefully it didn't literally add up to nothing. Surely most people try to squirrel away some savings over 20 years of working?

Living below one's means is always a good idea, and maybe that much more important for tech workers...

Well, for oneself, yes. But did all that effort put into the success of the company and working for so many years to achieve its long-term goals bear any fruit?

[jbunniii]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Well, for oneself, yes. But did all that effort put into the success of the company and working for so many years to achieve its long-term goals bear any fruit?

More phones in landfills, I suppose. But that's after a two year lifespan. Who thinks that long-term anymore?

[Muffy1]

I am not in IT, but I have many relatives in technology and engineering so unless you are in that age group you will not know that ageism exists or you just don't want to believe it exists. On a subconscious level, many people that hire tech people assume that younger engineers and IT people have the latest skill set and the stamina to put in the long hours whereas people assume that older workers are just waiting to retire. One day, all of you will be older so it is best to recognize ageism as an issue otherwise when you get older you will get passed up for jobs regardless of your skill set.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by jbunniii

More phones in landfills, I suppose. But that's after a two year lifespan. Who thinks that long-term anymore?

Wait, what? Sorry, had a bunch of tweets, pokes, emails, and texts coming in. What were we talking about? What is this "long-term" thing mean? I have not heard of...
Oh, gotta get this vid.