Ask HN: How real is Ageism?

I think ageism may be real in some areas of tech, including in some kinds of programming. I think web dev may be one of those areas, but I'm not in that area and I don't actually know.

Here's what it looks like from where I sit: Older people want to get paid more. If you want to get paid more, you have to be worth more. You don't become worth more by working longer hours - you can't compete with the young on that front. Instead, be worth more by creating fewer bugs, by not creating flawed designs, by knowing that something is a bad idea before it's implemented, and so on. Your experience has to show up in value for your employer, or it isn't worth more money.

So if your experience isn't worth more money, and you still want more money, you have trouble getting a job. It's not ageism, exactly (though ageism could result as hiring people internalize the situation).

I said "you have to be worth more money", but that isn't exactly right. You have to be worth more money, and be able to convince the hiring people that you are worth more money. If their default assumption is "older people aren't worth it", you've got an uphill struggle.

Web dev itself may be a problem. Is experience worth more than knowing the latest framework? Can you learn that framework faster than the younger people?

> Should I make efforts to make myself appear younger when interviewing?

No.

As someone who was in a non-technology role[1] who has interviewed people for technology roles I think ageism in technology is often inadvertent (I've never heard anyone say "Candidate X is too old for this position") and "shows" itself more than other areas because technology moves so fast. As people move up in an organization there is less need to hone their skills. "Old school" investment managers I have worked with still manage to the 60/40 rule. Similarly, a bank I worked for had a CTO who was probably top-notch at server security in the 1990's but completely resisted any SaaS that used AWS because of "security concerns." Instead of learning how to assess whether the way a potential vendor has configured AWS posed any risk to our company he just turned them away. He didn't understand AWS and had no interest in trying to. Because technology advances so quickly the CTO has been let go (resisting AWS is futile) while the 60/40 guy will probably continue to mismanage money for his clients until he decides to retire in the next 2-5 years.

[1] Attorney but also happened to wear Chief Info Security Officer/Chief Privacy Officer hats