Some of those points are actually age discriminatory.
For example, why assume that an older person should earn more than a younger person? Instead, it's better to think about paying people in proportion to the value that they provide to the company.
I understand that many startups simply do not have the cash required to pay a high base salary. But, that's what equity compensation is for.
Nobody is assuming you should pay an older person more because they are older, but because they are more experienced. Paying someone with 30 years experience more than someone fresh out of school isn't age discrimination.
Find me a fresh out of school 20 year old with 30 years experience and I'll pay them more too.
Paying someone with 30 years experience more than someone fresh out of school isn't age discrimination.
Just because someone has worked 30 years, doesn't mean they have 30 years of experience. They may have 5 years of experience 6 times or even worse stopped learning anything new 15 years ago.
I'm in my mid 40s and I've hired developers who are older than I am and had 10+ years of C# but have never done a unit test, didn't understand the concepts of continuous integration/continuous deployment, didn't know Linq (introduced in 2008), Web API (introduced in 2011), and didn't even know WCF.
I needed developers and thought with their experience with different technologies they would be able to adapt. I was hiring based on Joel's "smart and gets stuff done".
Was I wrong. Older developers who haven't kept up with the trends for the last decade and haven't kept up with the changes in technology are worse than young developers who don't know.
As far as the pay ceiling, yes I've reached a ceiling as a developer. But not as an architect who both keeps up the latest shiney frameworks and has a deep understanding of the fundamentals.
The discrimination is disqualifying someone from jobs just because they are older. Maybe they understand that they're retraining in a new industry or tech stack and will have to take a salary decrease, at least initially. In that case, they're not given a (fair!) interview because people assume they'll want too much money.
It's likely that pay has gone up because tech workers are providing more value.
Consider an employee working at an investment bank 15 years ago versus today. 15 years ago, most value was generated by hoards of sales people and traders who cultured deep personal relationships with deep-pocketed customers. Today, tech people command a greater share of the wallet, and banks are making deep cuts to the ranks of sales people and traders.
If it were true, new companies would emerge that paid good employees more -- closer to their fair value.
These companies are emerging, though, right? 37Signals? I'm sure there are other small well-paid companies, if only from the evidence of a job ad I once saw. Now, "Compensation: Competitive" and "Compensation: Market" have been batted around for years, even around here, but this ad was for a programmer at a financial technology company and in the space for "Compensation" they put "Extremely high." Then again, those places are probably actually using the Big-O concepts they ask about in interviews.
You never see anything like that in Internet companies.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: I'm not asking companies to pay older employees more. I'm simply pointing out that job-hopping and personal commitments make it likely that older employees will demand a higher salary, which smaller companies may be loath to give.
I agree that older candidates typically have expectations of higher total compensation.
My point is that, either:
1. That expectation is unfounded -- they are looking to be paid out of proportion to the value they would provide back to the company, or
2. That expectation is justified, in which case the cash-poor company should find some way of striking a deal, so that they can bring on an employee of high value.
> For example, why assume that an older person should earn more than a younger person?
They shouldn't earn more, if they're providing the same value as someone paid less. But, they typically ask for more, because they have more experience (which is difficult to validate), and usually have more financial obligations.
It is up to the employer to decide if they want to pay the price of seniority.
> I understand that many startups simply do not have the cash required to pay a high base salary. But, that's what equity compensation is for.
As one gets older, it's in their best interest to become more financially risk averse, and require more predictability and less uncertainty. Startup equity is very high-risk, and therefore not acceptable as a replacement to more salary.
I agree with you that increased age does not imply increased value/pay.
I do not agree about risk aversion. I know several older software developers who have finally paid off their student debt and accumulated some savings, and are now ready to accept some higher risk compensation. In addition, I know younger workers who are in desperate need of cash.
> why assume that an older person should earn more than a younger person
I personally feel there's a point where it's a law of diminishing returns, somewhere around the 5-10 year of experience mark.
> it's better to think about paying people in proportion to the value that they provide to the company.
In general older developers are bringing experience from other projects, other industries, past crises, and soft skills that provide value (for instance, I think a 24 year old and a 40 year old have different approaches to telling someone they disagree with them)
The problem with that line of thinking is that it is extremely hard to measure the value that employees provide to the company. “Pay them what they are worth” sounds straightforward, but in reality you just can’t put a number on a candidate.
The younger candidate might be inexperienced but a fast learner; the older candidate might have a lot of experience, but might be reluctant to adopt the companies coding practices...
There’s no way to know which of them is going to provide more value in the long term; but you do know that one of them expects a significantly higher salary.
> “Pay them what they are worth” but in reality you just can’t put a number on a candidate.
I'm having trouble making sense of this. Isn't that exactly what the hiring manager does? Then, if that number is too far off, it gets adjusted later, once more data as to value comes in.
A cynical way of saying it is that since assessing employee value is so difficult, companies adopt a strategy of systematically discriminating against older candidates.
For example, why assume that an older person should earn more than a younger person? Instead, it's better to think about paying people in proportion to the value that they provide to the company.
I understand that many startups simply do not have the cash required to pay a high base salary. But, that's what equity compensation is for.