We hear it over and over again and I understand the reluctance to address it (it can be scary to step out from the crowd) but when is an organization with clout, such as YC, going to take a stand on this issue? Until an organization has the desire and courage to step out from the crowd and fund ideas/startups, without regard to age but, on the strength of the idea and the team, then this issue will forever be in the news.
This would also be an opportunity to expand the pool of startups to fund and to analyze growth, ROI, etc. compared to the standard business practice of funding startups with young founders.
How can we say we care about people and on finding solutions for the problems facing people today when we shut the door on a large segment of society simply because they are over 40? i wonder how Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Sergey Brian, or Eric Schmidt feel about this topic if there was mandatory retirement at the age of 40 in tech. Would they think they still had something to offer? If the answer is they would, why is everyone ignoring this issue?
You have been on HN far longer than I and given the definitiveness of your statement, I will take your word for it that YC is not interested in working with founders over 40.
>But when is an organization with clout, such as YC, going to take a stand on this issue?
Given the current state of things, you could say they already have. The market has decided that younger engineers are more in demand because they are more willing to accept lower wages and longer working hours. If you can get 90% of the talent for 50% of the cost, it's just business. This holds true across many industries.
I suppose we'll just need more government regulation (mandatory reporting of candidate interviews, hiring criteria, hiring decision justifications, etc).
The problem, I think, is that they are hiring younger for what are economic decisions, rather than decisions based around protected status. That is, they're more likely hiring young because they can get a better deal out of it (they assume), not because of age in and of itself.
I don't want to see older tech workers out of work, but I also don't think it's a group that deserves anything more than any other group.
Please understand what I am saying, I do not think older workers want nor deserve special treatment. They simply want a chance to be considered. If an older applicant is willing to work the hours and for the offered pay, it appears they are not even being considered along with the younger applicants. At least that has been my takeaway from the many news reports on this issue.
To make a job offer based on a protected status (in short to hire a mature applicant simply because of their age) is as discriminatory as it is to exclude someone because they are an older applicant.
I spent too many years working for the government and I can assure you that is exactly what we do not need. Anyway, we already have that if someone wants to make a discrimination claim and they are called the EEOC.
I choose to think intelligent, creative individuals can find a solution to an issue such as this rather than beat each other up. Maybe I just need to take off my rose colored glasses.
I can't tell if you're being serious, but will the costs to the taxpayer and possible unintended consequences and invariable corruption be worth it to add more layers of government to our slowly eroding free interactions? Since there are plenty of job markets outside of Silicon Valley, maybe it's good people are looking elsewhere. These markets could use the boost.
There would be no additional costs as the EEOC already exists. I guess I should have asked for clarification about the seriousness of the statement that you are responding to as I assumed the individual was being somewhat sarcastic. That aside, the fact remains such a governmental body already exists. I favor self-determination and self-regulation over governmental oversight.
Additionally, it is important to remember that while looking in distant job markets/industries is a good and viable alternative to being jobless in SV, not every aging tech applicant has the ability to relocate. Some people cannot relocate because they have aging parents they must care for or they may be divorced and unable to relocate because they have a shared parenting agreement that requires court approval to relocate. Some people are in the SV job market without any other options other than to leave the field.
Have an applicant file a discrimination claim based on any number of factors in hiring or an employee file a claim of discrimination based on promotions and or down-sizing and you will suddenly have the privilege of providing every metric imaginable on the applicant pool. This will include interview selection process, distribution by any number of factors, hiring justification etc. All these can and do happen currently, no addition government regulations required.
For a company that is committed to fairness and compliance w non-discrimination policies, self-determination sets the standards by which compliance w company guidelines is measured. Frequently a quality assurance process verifies compliance of their specified metrics before an offer or promotion is extended. No cause for concern when as a company you are committed to fairness and ensure such through self-assessments.
YC offers the same amount of $ to each startup that it admits to its accelerator program. So your statement of "if you can get 90% of the talent for 50% of the cost" is confusing.
When it comes to hiring employees, each company has to make the decisions on whom to hire and what is the basis for their decisions. I realize that some individuals, especially those with established families, are unable to work for lower wages or for long hours, I am not talking about them. I was talking only about those areas within YCs sphere of influence....those receiving seed funding and being given an opportunity to launch their startup by going through YC. Ageism in SV affects what startups are given a chance, who VCs fund, and who is employed at any tech business. It is not solely a factor that goes to an interview/offer/acceptance scenario.
> If the answer is they would, why is everyone ignoring this issue?
Nobody is ignoring it. It's just if you haven't moved up the tech/management/etc ladder by your late 30s/40s, there just isn't a place for you in silicon valley/tech startup scene.
I started at a startup when I was 20. All the devs were in their 20s. Our founder was 29. During milestone/release/go-live times, we'd work 20 hours a day and sleep at our desks and wash in the 1 toilet bathroom the entire week or two prior to get our job ( deliverable ) done. Now that I'm older, that's something I just physically can't do. I just don't have the energy or stamina for it. Also, family responsibilities means I can't do it.
The startup scene is such a raw, all-or-nothing, winner-take-all scene that it'll always be a young man's game.
Also, younger people are viewed as more innovative, more immersed in new tech and quicker to learn. As much as experienced is touted, it's not worth much in the startup scene. Certainly it helps if you are the founder/team lead, but for the regular devs, it just makes sense to bring in the cheaper, hungrier, "quicker", eager college grads or young devs.
Put yourself in their position. Imagine you just founded a startup. Would you really be willing to hire overpaid 40 year olds who have to be home by 5 or 6 PM? Also, would you as a 40 year old be comfortable in a dev team with a bunch of 20 year olds?
This is why as devs grow older, they transition to more established corporations. It's why VCs love to fund younger founders. That's where the innovation/energy/risk-appetite is. 40 year olds have kids college funds to think of, their retirement funds, healthcare, etc to worry about. And as you grow older you get more conservative and set in your ways.
Also, as younger people/devs continue to create winners like google, facebook, snapchat, youtube, reddit, microsoft, etc, that's where the money will go.
Silicon Vally and the VC community isn't about charity or societal good, it's about making money.
> This is why as devs grow older, they transition to more established corporations. It's why VCs love to fund younger founders.
VCs love younger founders because their easier to manipulate and control. Becuase they'll cheerfully risk everything and give most the gains away to the VCs.
It is not an attitude we should be encouraging or suggesting is a status quo allowed to exist. In part because it's unethical, but also in part because it encourages the proliferation of many small, disposable companies that only benefit investors by trying to implement the smallest delta in tech increase possible in the industry.
Davidreiss, I want to address some of your points and then will drop the topic as it is clear that we are going to have to agree to disagree on many points. Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative or abrasive, just trying to push back or give some food for thought.
>if you haven't moved up in tech/management/etc ladder by your late 30s/40s, there just isn't a place for you in SV/tech startup scene>
Not all tech companies are founded by people from the tech industry. Noted futurist Joel Barker posited that transformational change in product and leadership comes more often from those outside the industry than within because those outside see the bigger picture than those who have been intricately involved. Your statement of "as much as experience is touted, it's not worth much in the startup scene" seems to imply that you at least on some level agree.
>You talk about your 20 hour days, not going home, doing what it takes to meet deliverable timelines and that this extended period could last for 2 weeks. And you state, "the startup scene is such a raw, all or nothing, winner-take all scene that it'll always be a young man's game.">.
I submit that it is the driven persons game. One of my cofounders and I obtained our doctorates a few years ago when we were late 30's and very early 40's. We both worked at minimum full-time (me on average 65 hrs a week) while getting all 58 hrs of coursework and our dissertation written and defended in 27 months start to finish. We averaged 4 hrs of sleep a night over these 27 months. We both had kids at home. Over the last 8 weeks leading up to defense we still worked our normal FT employment and completed revision and defending our individual dissertations while averaging 5-7 hours of sleep a week. We both successfully defended at our first attempt. I don't think it is a young man's game; it is the determined person's game. It is about determination, perseverance and belief in ourselves and supporting each other's success.
>"Younger people are seen as more innovative....". Henry Kaiser (63) of Kaiser Permanente; Ray Kroc (52) McDomald's; Dr. Thomas Frist(58) HCA; Bernard Marcus (49) Home Depot...to name a few would not agree. Innovation is about seeing a solution to a problem and then creating the solution people want. Founders are capable of finding those who compliment themselves and have skill sets that they lack to build their team. It isn't about being a top tier programmer, it is about being a passionate leader.
>Would you really be willing to hire overpaid 40 year olds who have to be home by 5 or 6 pm?>
All I can say to that is life in SV must really be different because I do not know a single person who has to be home by 5 or 6. I have always worked on average 60 hours + a week even when I had kids at home. Our technical leader is a successful tech entrepreneur who had a very successful exit and has no need to work but does so because despite his success he is creative and innovative by nature. We have supportive encouraging families. They are as committed to us as we are to them.
>VCs love to fund younger founders. That's where the innovation/energy/risk-appetite is.>
I think you are talking about a specific type of individual that is not always defined by age.
>And as you grow older you get more conservative and set in your ways. >
That may be true for you but that is not true for myself or my co-founders. Fortunately we are not dependent on SV to see our project funded as we can shoulder the risk. Yes it would be wonderful to have an opportunity to participate in YC (which by the way all three of us could commit to without any issues with spouses/or family difficulties), it is clear that we are not of the diversity that YC desires.
>SV and the VC community isn't about charity or societal good, it's about making money.>
> Over the last 8 weeks leading up to defense we still worked our normal FT employment and completed revision and defending our individual dissertations while averaging 5-7 hours of sleep a week.
Cool story bro, but utter bullshit. People who do that die, they don't have the mental capacity to defend a dissertation. Eight weeks at 1 hr/night is not something humans can do.
You are correct as I meant to say we averaged 5-7 hours the last week. And yes you can live on very little sleep when you have a sleeping disorder and take Adderall XR, Adderall and Provigil for said disorder. On average I sleep no more than 3-4 hrs a night; however every month to 6 weeks I will sleep 14-16 hrs straight but have to come off meds for a few days in order to allow sleep issues to prevail. I have had bizarre sleeping patterns since I was a kid and have been taking meds since I was 16.
You understand that the vast majority of jobs in Silicon Valley are not start ups. Google, Apple, Facebook -- these aren't start ups, and people aren't working 20 hour days there.
Moreover it's just not the case that someone can be productive for 20 hours a day for any extended period of time. Maybe you can do that for a few days, max, but then your productivity plummets and you'd be better off working 8 hours. This notion that 20 year olds have amazing concentration ability, rather than just poor time management, is believed only by 20 somethings with poor time management skills.
> You understand that the vast majority of jobs in Silicon Valley are not start ups. Google, Apple, Facebook -- these aren't start ups, and people aren't working 20 hour days there.
The guy I responded to was talking about startups and VC funding, so that's why I focused on startups.
> Moreover it's just not the case that someone can be productive for 20 hours a day for any extended period of time. Maybe you can do that for a few days, max, but then your productivity plummets and you'd be better off working 8 hours.
Sure. But when you have deliverables and are time constrained, you just don't have much choice. The client has expectations and we had to work extra hard to meet them. 20 hour workdays are definitely not viable over the long term.
> This notion that 20 year olds have amazing concentration ability, rather than just poor time management, is believed only by 20 somethings with poor time management skills.
I mostly talked about stamina, energy, quicker to learn, etc. Not sure about concentration ability, but I do tend to think younger people with a passion are better at concentrating and focusing on something. Also, I'm no longer a 20 something. Sadly, I'm one of those heading to 40s rather quickly.
I didn't mean to upset people. I was just talking from experience and trying to explain why VC money goes to younger founders and why startups prefer younger devs.
That formula isn't going to change until older founders and older devs start creating googles, facebooks, apples, microsofts, etc.
It isn't a bias against older people since almost all of the VC investors are older people in their 40s, 50s, etc. It's a matter of what demographic has delivered the 1000000% returns.
It isn't set in stone. Money will go where money is made. Especially in a high risk, high reward environment like the startup sector.
Believe me, as someone who is older now, I would like nothing more than to see things change. Being viewed as over-the-hill when you turn 30 is a difficult pill to swallow.
But again, the article was about discrimination in the valley, and the parent was also referring to sv, although they again identified sv as a start up scene when it's really not.
Sure, start ups discriminate against older workers, against women, against blacks, etc. Hell, I've seen them discriminate against people with different musical tastes. Start ups, by definition, are small businesses and we tolerate/have lower standards for small businesses than large corporations. That's why you have restaurants that only hire family members, for example.
Fortunately start ups are kind of irrelevant in terms of total developer employment in the valley. There just aren't that many start ups and they don't survive that long, so they don't account for most employment. They do capture the imagination of the valley, so whenever someone brings up age discrimination in the valley, the come back is always "well, in a start up.."
>That formula isn't going to change until older founders and older devs start creating googles, facebooks, apples, microsofts, etc.
Intel was started by Robert Noyce when he was 41. Gordon Moore was 40. Geschke and Warnock were 45 and 42 when they founded Adobe. Cisco and AMD were founded by 30 somethings. Huang was 39 when he founded NVIDIA. Interestingly in China, Jack Ma was 35 when he founded Ali Baba -- would he have been able to raise capital in SV today?
None of the original companies in SV were founded by someone in their 20s. It just didn't happen. The idea that only 20 somethings can start companies is very new, and whether or not it's a good idea, it's not the case that workers in their 30s and 40s need to "prove" that they are able to found big companies, as we are all living in the shadows of great tech companies founded by people in this age bracket.
Depending on the industry, there is a tendency to hire founders of a certain age group. Certain industries like mfg and international trade favor older founders who have acquired knowledge and widespread contacts over decades. Other industries that need the latest college-produced science & tech favor the newest grads from 1st tier universities. It's all about risk reduction and outsized returns. Where energy and time count most, send in the youth. Where widespread personal networks and deep domain knowledge count most, send in the grey hairs.
25 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 69.6 ms ] threadThis would also be an opportunity to expand the pool of startups to fund and to analyze growth, ROI, etc. compared to the standard business practice of funding startups with young founders.
How can we say we care about people and on finding solutions for the problems facing people today when we shut the door on a large segment of society simply because they are over 40? i wonder how Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Sergey Brian, or Eric Schmidt feel about this topic if there was mandatory retirement at the age of 40 in tech. Would they think they still had something to offer? If the answer is they would, why is everyone ignoring this issue?
This is not the sort of diversity they're interested in.
Given the current state of things, you could say they already have. The market has decided that younger engineers are more in demand because they are more willing to accept lower wages and longer working hours. If you can get 90% of the talent for 50% of the cost, it's just business. This holds true across many industries.
I don't want to see older tech workers out of work, but I also don't think it's a group that deserves anything more than any other group.
To make a job offer based on a protected status (in short to hire a mature applicant simply because of their age) is as discriminatory as it is to exclude someone because they are an older applicant.
I choose to think intelligent, creative individuals can find a solution to an issue such as this rather than beat each other up. Maybe I just need to take off my rose colored glasses.
Additionally, it is important to remember that while looking in distant job markets/industries is a good and viable alternative to being jobless in SV, not every aging tech applicant has the ability to relocate. Some people cannot relocate because they have aging parents they must care for or they may be divorced and unable to relocate because they have a shared parenting agreement that requires court approval to relocate. Some people are in the SV job market without any other options other than to leave the field.
Companies use secrecy and information asymmetry in order to take advantage of employees. I continue to find ways to rectify that.
Self-determination is a strawman.
For a company that is committed to fairness and compliance w non-discrimination policies, self-determination sets the standards by which compliance w company guidelines is measured. Frequently a quality assurance process verifies compliance of their specified metrics before an offer or promotion is extended. No cause for concern when as a company you are committed to fairness and ensure such through self-assessments.
When it comes to hiring employees, each company has to make the decisions on whom to hire and what is the basis for their decisions. I realize that some individuals, especially those with established families, are unable to work for lower wages or for long hours, I am not talking about them. I was talking only about those areas within YCs sphere of influence....those receiving seed funding and being given an opportunity to launch their startup by going through YC. Ageism in SV affects what startups are given a chance, who VCs fund, and who is employed at any tech business. It is not solely a factor that goes to an interview/offer/acceptance scenario.
Nobody is ignoring it. It's just if you haven't moved up the tech/management/etc ladder by your late 30s/40s, there just isn't a place for you in silicon valley/tech startup scene.
I started at a startup when I was 20. All the devs were in their 20s. Our founder was 29. During milestone/release/go-live times, we'd work 20 hours a day and sleep at our desks and wash in the 1 toilet bathroom the entire week or two prior to get our job ( deliverable ) done. Now that I'm older, that's something I just physically can't do. I just don't have the energy or stamina for it. Also, family responsibilities means I can't do it.
The startup scene is such a raw, all-or-nothing, winner-take-all scene that it'll always be a young man's game.
Also, younger people are viewed as more innovative, more immersed in new tech and quicker to learn. As much as experienced is touted, it's not worth much in the startup scene. Certainly it helps if you are the founder/team lead, but for the regular devs, it just makes sense to bring in the cheaper, hungrier, "quicker", eager college grads or young devs.
Put yourself in their position. Imagine you just founded a startup. Would you really be willing to hire overpaid 40 year olds who have to be home by 5 or 6 PM? Also, would you as a 40 year old be comfortable in a dev team with a bunch of 20 year olds?
This is why as devs grow older, they transition to more established corporations. It's why VCs love to fund younger founders. That's where the innovation/energy/risk-appetite is. 40 year olds have kids college funds to think of, their retirement funds, healthcare, etc to worry about. And as you grow older you get more conservative and set in your ways.
Also, as younger people/devs continue to create winners like google, facebook, snapchat, youtube, reddit, microsoft, etc, that's where the money will go.
Silicon Vally and the VC community isn't about charity or societal good, it's about making money.
VCs love younger founders because their easier to manipulate and control. Becuase they'll cheerfully risk everything and give most the gains away to the VCs.
It is not an attitude we should be encouraging or suggesting is a status quo allowed to exist. In part because it's unethical, but also in part because it encourages the proliferation of many small, disposable companies that only benefit investors by trying to implement the smallest delta in tech increase possible in the industry.
>if you haven't moved up in tech/management/etc ladder by your late 30s/40s, there just isn't a place for you in SV/tech startup scene>
Not all tech companies are founded by people from the tech industry. Noted futurist Joel Barker posited that transformational change in product and leadership comes more often from those outside the industry than within because those outside see the bigger picture than those who have been intricately involved. Your statement of "as much as experience is touted, it's not worth much in the startup scene" seems to imply that you at least on some level agree.
>You talk about your 20 hour days, not going home, doing what it takes to meet deliverable timelines and that this extended period could last for 2 weeks. And you state, "the startup scene is such a raw, all or nothing, winner-take all scene that it'll always be a young man's game.">.
I submit that it is the driven persons game. One of my cofounders and I obtained our doctorates a few years ago when we were late 30's and very early 40's. We both worked at minimum full-time (me on average 65 hrs a week) while getting all 58 hrs of coursework and our dissertation written and defended in 27 months start to finish. We averaged 4 hrs of sleep a night over these 27 months. We both had kids at home. Over the last 8 weeks leading up to defense we still worked our normal FT employment and completed revision and defending our individual dissertations while averaging 5-7 hours of sleep a week. We both successfully defended at our first attempt. I don't think it is a young man's game; it is the determined person's game. It is about determination, perseverance and belief in ourselves and supporting each other's success.
>"Younger people are seen as more innovative....". Henry Kaiser (63) of Kaiser Permanente; Ray Kroc (52) McDomald's; Dr. Thomas Frist(58) HCA; Bernard Marcus (49) Home Depot...to name a few would not agree. Innovation is about seeing a solution to a problem and then creating the solution people want. Founders are capable of finding those who compliment themselves and have skill sets that they lack to build their team. It isn't about being a top tier programmer, it is about being a passionate leader.
>Would you really be willing to hire overpaid 40 year olds who have to be home by 5 or 6 pm?>
All I can say to that is life in SV must really be different because I do not know a single person who has to be home by 5 or 6. I have always worked on average 60 hours + a week even when I had kids at home. Our technical leader is a successful tech entrepreneur who had a very successful exit and has no need to work but does so because despite his success he is creative and innovative by nature. We have supportive encouraging families. They are as committed to us as we are to them.
>VCs love to fund younger founders. That's where the innovation/energy/risk-appetite is.>
I think you are talking about a specific type of individual that is not always defined by age.
>And as you grow older you get more conservative and set in your ways. >
That may be true for you but that is not true for myself or my co-founders. Fortunately we are not dependent on SV to see our project funded as we can shoulder the risk. Yes it would be wonderful to have an opportunity to participate in YC (which by the way all three of us could commit to without any issues with spouses/or family difficulties), it is clear that we are not of the diversity that YC desires.
>SV and the VC community isn't about charity or societal good, it's about making money.>
You might wan...
Cool story bro, but utter bullshit. People who do that die, they don't have the mental capacity to defend a dissertation. Eight weeks at 1 hr/night is not something humans can do.
Moreover it's just not the case that someone can be productive for 20 hours a day for any extended period of time. Maybe you can do that for a few days, max, but then your productivity plummets and you'd be better off working 8 hours. This notion that 20 year olds have amazing concentration ability, rather than just poor time management, is believed only by 20 somethings with poor time management skills.
The guy I responded to was talking about startups and VC funding, so that's why I focused on startups.
> Moreover it's just not the case that someone can be productive for 20 hours a day for any extended period of time. Maybe you can do that for a few days, max, but then your productivity plummets and you'd be better off working 8 hours.
Sure. But when you have deliverables and are time constrained, you just don't have much choice. The client has expectations and we had to work extra hard to meet them. 20 hour workdays are definitely not viable over the long term.
> This notion that 20 year olds have amazing concentration ability, rather than just poor time management, is believed only by 20 somethings with poor time management skills.
I mostly talked about stamina, energy, quicker to learn, etc. Not sure about concentration ability, but I do tend to think younger people with a passion are better at concentrating and focusing on something. Also, I'm no longer a 20 something. Sadly, I'm one of those heading to 40s rather quickly.
I didn't mean to upset people. I was just talking from experience and trying to explain why VC money goes to younger founders and why startups prefer younger devs.
That formula isn't going to change until older founders and older devs start creating googles, facebooks, apples, microsofts, etc.
It isn't a bias against older people since almost all of the VC investors are older people in their 40s, 50s, etc. It's a matter of what demographic has delivered the 1000000% returns.
It isn't set in stone. Money will go where money is made. Especially in a high risk, high reward environment like the startup sector.
Believe me, as someone who is older now, I would like nothing more than to see things change. Being viewed as over-the-hill when you turn 30 is a difficult pill to swallow.
Sure, start ups discriminate against older workers, against women, against blacks, etc. Hell, I've seen them discriminate against people with different musical tastes. Start ups, by definition, are small businesses and we tolerate/have lower standards for small businesses than large corporations. That's why you have restaurants that only hire family members, for example.
Fortunately start ups are kind of irrelevant in terms of total developer employment in the valley. There just aren't that many start ups and they don't survive that long, so they don't account for most employment. They do capture the imagination of the valley, so whenever someone brings up age discrimination in the valley, the come back is always "well, in a start up.."
>That formula isn't going to change until older founders and older devs start creating googles, facebooks, apples, microsofts, etc.
Intel was started by Robert Noyce when he was 41. Gordon Moore was 40. Geschke and Warnock were 45 and 42 when they founded Adobe. Cisco and AMD were founded by 30 somethings. Huang was 39 when he founded NVIDIA. Interestingly in China, Jack Ma was 35 when he founded Ali Baba -- would he have been able to raise capital in SV today?
None of the original companies in SV were founded by someone in their 20s. It just didn't happen. The idea that only 20 somethings can start companies is very new, and whether or not it's a good idea, it's not the case that workers in their 30s and 40s need to "prove" that they are able to found big companies, as we are all living in the shadows of great tech companies founded by people in this age bracket.