Ask HN: Does startups hire above 35 years old employees?

33 points by JamesAdir ↗ HN
Every time I take a peek at a startup profile page on their website you can only see 20 something in the frame. I know that many startups are created by people at this age, but as the company grow (25-50 employees) I wonder why I can't still see some older people there. I'm not talking at all about people who are 50 plus with some grey hair that are missing entirely from the pictures.

62 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 49.6 ms ] thread
Startups are looking for people with as much free time and energy as possible. And the older one gets the more probable it is that they have a family, and cannot sustain a heavy schedule. So younger people are hired on average more often. Individuals that fit the "startup schedule" should not worry about their age.
Of course there are laws against some of those things, with (probably) exemptions if there are fewer than X employees. One place told me "we are not hiring employees now, but we can just give you $yyy/mo."
I wasn't 35 and I didn't have kids when I joined my current startup, but I am and I do now. I'd have to say a startup that is looking for my skillset would be very foolish to pass on me for a 25-year-old who worked 80 hours at half the price. That sort of focus on cost and hours rather than value delivered and mistakes avoided will drive a startup straight into the ground.
Exactly. That's the problem I've noticed: Do you really want to hire someone who takes 80 hours to accomplish something that takes 8 hours for someone else? I think we've all seen this happening. I was brought in to a parallel team one day because they were about to miss a deadline. Turns out 25 year old guy was trying to build a graph database from scratch. He didn't know that he was building a graph database, and wasn't really aware they existed. He just knew what he needed, and went about building it. He spent a huge amount of time building his own awful, non-performant implementation. I told the team lead to get Bob to help. Bob has kids who are in their mid 30's. Bob sat down, logged into the VM, and a few hours later had an instance of Neo4J running and hooked into the app.

But hey, he thinks foosball tables don't belong in offices, so why hire him at a startup?

Please don't down vote him for highlighting the current situation.

The question wasn't "should startup hire..."

And he answered with what's happening in the field, like it or not.

How does one down vote posts here?
I would straight forward look for skillsets and productivity(productivity includes guys availability i.e. whatever is needed) and attitude rather than age, Period.
I've worked solely at startups my entire career, from 20 to 50+. Not been an issue anywhere.
Yes, of course "they" do.

It depends.(tm)

YES ABSOLUTELY

TBH Attitude is far more important than age (and skills)

I know loads of hairdressers that have a good attitude.
And? Hairdressers can't work at start-ups?

I get very tired of comments like this that imply that working at a start-up or software company is somehow "better" than working at other jobs, especially those that require a reasonable level of skill.

Please don't look down on people.

EDIT: Hmm, I suppose the point is that a hairdresser doesn't have the range of skills a start-up should be interested in. But still, it reads poorly.

I read it as "people in unrelated professions can have good attitudes too", i.e. "skill matters".
lol - just saw this

I think you're mis-reading the intent of my comment

Of course skills matter (I'm unlikely to hire a hair-dresser who has never done anything other than cut hair for a development role - but I have hired "career changers" like this for other roles - like support / sales).

HOWEVER if I'm judging two candidates with suitable (define as you will) skill sets then the one with the better attitude will always get the role

TBH this is even more important when it comes to internal promotions than for initial hiring (but now we're going slightly off topic)

Attitude criteria are often proxies for culture fitting; you are basically making a call on whether they are extroverted/emphatic or not, vs. checking skills or anything.

For internal promotions, it's called "being visible" and "managing up", where again, appearance is more important than capability.

Hey Tim,

I knew what you were trying to get at, but wanted to point out that the sentence that you initially wrote wasn't entirely accurate.

Of course I agree that attitude matters, but skills are certainly important, hence my comment.

a startup with age limit is a dead startup!
If the startup is started by people in their early 20s, perhaps older people are less likely to work there because it feels weird to have a boss who is 10 years younger than you.
Friendly grammar lesson[1]:

"Does" vs. "do" can be a difficult distinction[2]. Your choice depends on whether the sentence subject is singular ("he does like cake") or plural ("bob and alice do like cake").

A good trick to make the distinction easier (and to properly identify the subject, which I still find difficult in some cases) is to rearrange the sentence as a simple affirmation:

* Startups does hire above 35.

* Startups do hire above 35.

The only exception to this rule is that you always use do when the subject is "I," "me," or "you": "I do," "you do," "do you?", "do I?", "do startups hire me?," etc (even though "I," "me," and "you" are singular).

1. The vibe I've gotten from HN and /r/programming (and from my own experience communicating in another language) is that, in general, ESL individuals find it helpful for others to point out when they make grammatical mistakes. Hopefully JamesAdir feels the same, and actually is ESL (or I'm sure I'll come out looking like a jackass), so I apologize in advance if the above is not true in this case. 2. http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/verbs/what-does-or-what-do/

I'm English and that was still a fascinating read.

It was also the friendly "grammer-nazi" post I think I've ever seen.

friendliest.

sorry ..

Don't apologise, the predictive type on the Nexus 4 is fun :).
> It was also the friendly "grammer-nazi" post I think I've ever seen.

I think you meant,

It was also the friendliest "grammer-nazi" post I think I've ever seen.

I'm Swedish, studied English many years ago -- and still know more English grammar than that. But I certainly do more "do/does" errors than a native English speaker.

I remember the AI course at univ when we needed to parse Swedish sentences -- and an English PhD student was teaching the class trivial Swedish grammar, which we all had forgotten...

> But I certainly do more "do/does" errors than a native English speaker.

You "make" them. This thread is a grammar Nazi goldmine, and I say this as a grammar Nazi for whom English is his second language.

I did like this "grammer-nazi" post alot.
Does a(ny) startup hire employees above 35 years old?

A little shuffling around but..

It is partially due to assortative matching. Startups don't advertise to (or maybe even want) older candidates, while many older candidates don't actually want to work at startups. Laying blame just on the companies doesn't quite make sense to me.

Of the several hundred applicants we've gotten at Standard Treasury, the median age is likely a little less than the founding team (we're all 27-28). That age is likely even higher than most other startups that go through YC as we build enterprise software for banks -- it's not the sexiest topic in the world. Well, it is to me but you get my point.

We've hired some people that skew older compared to most other startups we know but that only seems to our benefit, frankly.

Fun fact: In the U.S., you can age discriminate (ie: not hire people under/over a certain age) all you want, as long as the person isn't over 40.

So you can certainly legally not hire people over 35 years old, as long as they're not yet 40.

Once they're 40, you can not discriminate against them because they're too old (eg: Fred can't do that job, he's 50 years old) or too young (eg: We can't hire Joe for the CEO job, he's only 42.)

Of course there are many reasons to hire/not hire someone, but if you're using age as a criteria, you are on very shaky ground legally.

In practice, though, since hiring decisions are so subjective, couldn't one justify it with "we felt that they wouldn't be a good fit" and be off the hook?
Yes, it is often easy to circumvent the law.
If the person isn't "a good fit" then yes, as long as the record (your emails) supports that decision. Email saying things like "he's so much older than the other applicants" or "he's got school-aged kids, so his head won't be in the game" will be found in discovery and will lose your case.

Another thing to consider: people who file discrimination lawsuits usually do not prevail on the discrimination claim, they prevail on the retaliation claim. It is often quite easy to show retaliation, especially if it is an employee and not an applicant.

Ah, interesting, thanks. So these laws aren't as unenforceable as I thought, that's good.
Why is that good?
Because discrimination against criteria that have nothing to do with job performance is bad.
More generally, I think those criteria are proxies for actual performance. For example, you can infer information about someone's performance from their age, absent of any other information, but when you do have the extra information and still rely on proxies, it's bias.
>you can infer information about someone's performance from their age

I would argue that you can not infer much about someone's job performance based solely on their age.

It's complicated. Older people are likely to be in a higher position, and I think are less likely to look for a job through the company's careers page, because they're likely to have a more extensive network of contacts and possible employers. As such, older people tend to join startups later than its first non-founding employees, because they're likelier to be distinguished experts in their field, who need to be sought out and need more pay.

On the other hand, I've known plenty of startups who're happy to hire older people for junior roles. They just get fewer old applicants.

I don't know if there's also a significant bias against older employees. I can believe there is. Either way, I'm certain that it's not the biggest reason startups tend to hire young people.

At least in California, they cannot ask you your age during interviews.
Well, where I currently work (Silent Circle), we have many people over 35, with many being in their 50s. I find that the older coworkers tend to really know what they're talking about, so I always consult them when designing something.

I guess it depends on the person, but, in my limited experience, hackers get better with age.

I agree with you. I'm 32, and my biggest complaint at my current team is the lack of more experienced people to learn from. I think the "team full of 20 somethings" brings a dangerous lack of diverse thinking.
In general, I don't think it's the startups that discriminate against older people, as much as it's the other way around.

Most older people would tend to have a better skill set and the startups would love to get that, but they wouldn't want to pay for it. Furthermore, older people might be more risk averse (Will this company stick around for more than 3 months?).

All very broad generalisations, understood.

In my experience, as some of the others have said, yes, they do. The developer at my last company was in his 40s and still had that mentality. What you will find, though, is that there's a tradeoff there, because not everyone does; as you get older, you're less inclined to work 80 hours a week for a project (unless it's your own.)

At the new company, we hire for cultural fit, and this means we tend towards (but aren't exclusive) people around our own age (27, on average). But we have a fairly wide distribution around that.

They do, I was 35 when I got hired by my current startup.

But they are less likely to hire 35+ for many good reasons.

A 35+ is more likely to be have a higher salary demand due to more expertise and experience. An early bootstrapping Startup usually offer low salaries (although sugared with share options) and can only hire people very early on their salary ladder, or the ones who are not so good...

A more successful Startup often able to offer better salaries and do hire 35+, however only few startups are successful.

That is a good filtering.

A not good filtering is that a 35+ due to experience will probably know that 80 hour weeks, crunch modes etc are counter effective and are less afraid of saying no. And therefore 35+ are less attractive to entrepreneurs who are looking for people to put in their entire life into the company as they do even though they only own a tiny part of it, if that.

On top of this a 35+ often have families, hobbies, a life etc and rarely can/will do more than 40 hours per week and will not apply to startups job ads that quickly smells of continuous crunch mode.

Should be said. Older people often don't have as much experience with some of the newer technologies. For example I am 36 and even though I feel that I am up on Node.js and CoffeeScript and ToffeeScript and some NoSQL and Three.is and some other stuff that I think is still relatively new, I have little to no mobile dev experience. Part of that might be related to the fact that mobile dev was sort of niche for a significant part of my programming career. I have a lot of experience with many different technologies but not the same ones as younger developers so I don't quite share their programming worldview.

I have also spoken to a number of developers older than me who are far behind. Like they didn't understand the point of Ruby or Node and thought Php was just fine. Or they thought that all of the organizations code should go in two giant repos like the old svn way.

So the reality is that sometimes older people aren't up to date or don't share your culture.

Having said all of that I personally believe that in most respects younger developers are just as far behind as the older developers and often lacking quite a bit if perspective. Whereas older developers need to update their perspective.

Obviously it depends on the person so generalizations like those are usually going to be counterproductive because the best developers are in their own category

Should be said, black people are lazy, and Asians are good at math!

I want you to repeat that statement any time you feel like you have a valid stereotype that must be said. Because it should help to remind you that a stereotype is not a truth.

Don't help promote ageism. Some people make development a job, others make it a lifestyle. Age has nothing to do with that. I have devs anywhere from 25-30, and I'm often disappointed by their lack of exposure or passion for the new tech out there. But they will all go home at the end of the day and read comics, or watch TV. I'm 39, and I come home and play with a new technology or build a new product. Your age doesn't define you, your passion does.

Thanks for pointing this out. You said it better than I could: "Some people make development a job, others make it a lifestyle. Age has nothing to do with that. I have devs anywhere from 25-30, and I'm often disappointed by their lack of exposure or passion for the new tech out there. But they will all go home at the end of the day and read comics, or watch TV. "

Well said. A colleague of mine who had no GF, no family, no responsibilities at 27 continued to disappoint me on a regular basis with his lack of drive to learn. He had zero growth since joining our team, and has just signed on with a startup who made the mistake of not doing a technical interview. Whoever the team lead is who gets stuck with him is screwed. On a side note, I learned how important rigorous technical interviews are. When he told me he got the job and said it involved business intelligence/data warehousing, I mentioned to him that he had never worked with these things, and asked him if he indicated this in the interview. His response: "Well, I know SQL, and I looked at star schemas on wikipedia and it doesn't look that complicated." I then asked him (this was him giving me a 2 weeks notice) if he had contacted the team lead to find out what the tech stack was so he could start reading up on using any tools he wasn't familiar with. This hadn't even occurred to him.

Lack of passion spans the age groups.

Simply put, people in their 30s, 40s and beyond are more likely to have kids and a mortgage, and be averse to the risk that a startup carries. 20-somethings are more likely to be in a position to work for a company that might not be meeting payroll obligations reliably -- and to reap the benefits that (can) come with that risk
So, I assume the founders in the images are young also. If the company is small, then maybe it's a case of the founders mostly pulling people from their own social groups. Obviously this group would be young if the founders are young.
Technically it should be the best woman/man for the job and often it depends on two things -

1) What profile is the startup trying to fill in? Adult supervision (read COO) at a fast growing venture backed company run by barely out of teens? You might want to poach someone like Ms. Sandberg.

2) Which sector and industry is the startup plying in? Is it enterprise software? Hiring for a VP engineering or an Engineering Manager? Hadoop or Solr specialist? Need years of experience/ deep knowledge. 20 somethings might not be the best fit. Enterprise startups like Altiscale, BitGlass, BrightFunnel, were in the news this week (funding rounds, launch) .. look at their about us pages, plenty of experience and grey hair.

Horses for courses work fairly well, inside and outside the startup world.

When you get a little older your risk profile often changes. You have kids who you hopefully think are far more amazing than work and providing a secure lifestyle for them becomes more important than a potential lottery ticket of super-riches. You probably find it a bit harder to "drink the kool aid" that your tech project - while really really cool - is in fact "changing the world" and deserving of "passion." If you take a big risk in your mid 20s and blow up you have a long lifetime to recover. Past your mid-30s you become more aware that you have less time to recover financially from big setbacks.

As an almost 40 geezer I think it's amazing the startup ecosystem exists for the younger crowd and wish it was more fleshed out when I was at that point in life. But I just have different priorities for myself now.

In my last company/startup, when I was more actively involved in the hiring, the best candidate we saw of the 100+ interviewed was 40 yo. He declined the offer because we couldn't pay him enough even though he was _obviously_ worth the money.

At my current startup, around the time I joined we were explicitly only looking for senior developers who were generally at the top of their game. As a result we _mostly_ hired people who were at least 28, and often significantly over 30 because that seems to be about the time you hit that point. Needless to say, we hired a lot of people with kids. I personally had my first kid one month after hire, and I was very open about that timing in my interviews.

So yeah, it depends on the startup, but it seems to me that any startup that isn't willing to hire "older" developers is discriminating their way out of many of the top candidates.

It seems like it depends on the field. I joined my current startup at 36, and there's a lot of people older than me - also, some younger. Some with kids, some without. But that's in the storage industry, not web apps, so there might be some institutional bias or lack thereof.
[un]conscious self-selection bias? you're going to be spending 100 hrs/week with your co-workers at a startup, so people will hire those they can relate to as part of cultural fit.

that said, there are roles that require more experience/industry relationships/gravitas as a company matures (e.g., Sandberg as COO) and that often correlates with age.

> Does startups [sic] hire above 35 years old employees [sic]?

That depends in part on whether the 35-year-old is functionally literate.