Ask HN: Why is that 10+ years experience folks struggle to find work
I see that lots of 10+ years of folks in software struggle to find work while while lots of under 26 command 100K+ salary . I don't want to be cynical and I completely understand and also onboard with everyone should receive compensation commensurate to their talent. In fact, I fully support it.
Lately though, after hanging around on sites like HN, reading quite a lot I am finding an interesting observation. People having 10+ or even 15+ years of experience face greater challenge to find work , be it change of job , finding job in new state etc. where as there are lot of young folks who easily command 100K+ salary.
What is missing glue ? Why people with large experience struggle to find work ? Are we gradually moving into phenomena that if you are 30+ then either be in management or get out ?
Would love to hear your point of view.
46 comments
[ 0.28 ms ] story [ 196 ms ] threadPersonally, I'm 41 with 15+ years of IT experience and I have never felt any sense of age discrimination at all. But, I'm also constantly working to keep my skills current, and I do a lot of things to make myself attractive and known in my area - speaking at events, writing articles, blogging, etc. shrug
My feeling is, if you're sitting at 15 years of experience and you've been, for example, writing Java code for 15 years, go pick up a Scala or Clojure book, or learn R or take the time to learn Hadoop, Spark, Storm, Kafka, MongoDB, etc. If you have skills that are "hip" at a moment in time, I don't think it's usually going to matter much how old you are.
OTOH, if you are a 15 year Java programmer who is still writing Java 1.2 code for a JSP based app that integrates with a COBOL book-keeping system on an IBM S/360, and you refuse to even look at that "new fangled" Java 1.3 or newer, then yeah, you might find yourself in a tough spot if/when they decide to turn off that mainframe.
[1]: https://pragprog.com/book/shcloj2/programming-clojure
[2]: http://www.manning.com/rathore/
Just because you learn a new language or technology doesn't mean you become better at problem solving. It just means that you can solve problems using a different tool.
At least, that's the way I always interpreted it.
Lawyers and Physicians, Dentists, Nurses, and Dental Hygienists, they all do have to stay current - in fact, I believe that they are legally required to stay current. Now, HN is a tech board, so we don't hear from nearly as many Dental Hygienists here, but I'm going to operate on the assumption that DH's, at age 41, don't encounter the same issues of obsolescence as software developers do.
I think that a big part of this may be something Michael O Church described as "dimensionality" (in an essay on the relative scarcity of women in programming).
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/dimensionalit...
The dimensionality may be a factor here… just as the path to becoming a programmer is much more vague and subjective than in many other fields, so is the path to remaining relevant as a programmer. It's not that it's strictly harder, it's that it's much more ambiguous.
Because they are required as a condition of professional licensing to stay current (and have a documentary trail of staying current that matches and profession-wide accepted definition of what "staying current" means), which means that while there is some risk of being in a specialization for which demand is reduced, it is virtually impossible to not stay current in the manner expected in the industry without voluntarily choosing to abandon the profession. Consequently, its harder to have covert age discrimination with "not being current" as an excuse.
> The dimensionality may be a factor here… just as the path to becoming a programmer is much more vague and subjective than in many other fields, so is the path to remaining relevant as a programmer. It's not that it's strictly harder, it's that it's much more ambiguous.
Sure, but I don't think that is anything inherent in the subject matter ofprogramming that is less clear cut than, e.g., law, in those terms. Its just a difference in the social and regulatory context.
That doesn't mean it isn't rigorous - getting through nursing graduate school and getting board certified as a nurse anesthetist is very rigorous! But my guess is that the path is much clearer. You don't end up getting surprise interview questions about the Fourier transform because you claim to know how to interpret ultrasound.
Maybe more seasoned people struggling to find work are looking for jobs as if they were young?
As a single data point, I have 10 years of (paid) experience and a graduate degree. When I was about 30 I struggled a lot to find any IT related position. Part of it had to do with me doing the same thing as all the fresh crop of B.A.s were doing at the same time: send resumes, apply to jobs online, contact my alumni association, etc.
The thing is that I was competing in a market where I was seen as past the pull date: overqualified and too expensive for entry level positions, but still not mature enough for management.
Fast forward 8 years and I am doing much better. One thing I accidentally discovered is that there is a lot of weight in having a list of colleagues that know you, trust you, and are willing/able to let you know of career opportunities that are not heavily publicized. I have been in both sides of that kind of relationship and it is a win-win.
So, maybe some people struggling may benefit from being a little more social? Or maybe their own network is very isolated (all work at the same place) so they all enter times of need at the same time and are not able to help each other out?
If you're experienced, you're better off building a startup.
Always switching technologies will get you only basic knowledge in each of them. Going past the surface requires daily use and years of constant evolution. That's how you become an expert in something. Deeper understanding. Not broader.
However I get what you mean. The guy does seem to be a bit up himself.
Always switching technologies won't get you in depth knowledge, but it will show you different, possibly better approaches. I would say a bit of both experience, as well as learning new ways of doing things helps.
I learned Java at university. Inheritance and Polymorhpism were like black boxes until I learned Perl afterwards, and the mechanisms are there in front of you (OOP in Perl is a bit of a hack, but it makes it transparent how it works). That (and other features of Perl) helped my understanding of Java.
After having interviewed over a hundred candidates I can now tell in the first minutes of the meeting. They generally apply for a role they never have done before, are overdressed for the occasion and talk flawlessly with confidence.
(though irony has it that some mainfraim experts can earn a fortune because nobody has that skill any more while some companies do still need it.)
As for cultural fit; you'll see youngsters in t-shirts getting rejected at bigger corporates, and 'older' developers in suits getting rejected at startups. Not necessarily an age thing on a meta level. (or is the question specifically aimed at employment at startups? In that case, ignore my comment above).
#1 Reason: ineffective, non-focused job search strategy. #2) Passive approach, negative or even a pessimistic attitude. #3) They've stopped learning and growing.